Having a parental responsibility law is a good idea, because all parents are responsible for disciplining their children and teaching them the right things. If they fail to supervise their children, they are more likely to be led astray by other people. Children must be disciplined since young, and parents also need to start building a close relationship with their children from the day they were born. That way the children can grow into good people.
Being a parent is not easy. Some parents may have tried their best to control their children but still failed. But some parents may not even bother to discipline their children, or maybe they teach their children the wrong things. When their children commit a crime, the parental responsibility law can act as a wake up call to these parents. It can also help those parents who do not know how to handle their children. Like mentioned in the article, parents should first be given counseling. If these parents refuse to change their children’s criminal behaviour, then they should be prosecuted. Sometimes people just need some help to redirect them to the correct path, but if they insist on walking the wrong way, then they should bear the consequences. As for the consequences they need to face, it depends on how serious the violations or offences their children have made.
For the case of the 16 year old boy who murdered his girlfriend’s husband, I think he should be sentenced to maybe 20 years of imprisonment. He is still a teenager, and he came from a broken family where his parents had little time to spend with him. He is very vulnerable to bad influences. It is not surprising that he would come to this stage. Therefore I think he was not completely at fault and should not be given a life sentence or death sentence. As for his (step) parents, they should be given counseling. Maybe they did not know that their negligence have affected their son, and so they should be given a chance.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
When good wombs bear bad sons
I think that having parental responsibility law is not a very good idea. After all, parents could not possibly follow their children twenty-four hours everyday just to make sure that they stay out of trouble. We should learn to take responsibility for all our actions, and not let our parents be responsible of whatever we do.
We should put the juveniles who commit criminal offences like manslaughter, murder, rape, arson and other violent crimes into boys/girls' home and to be sent for counselling. They are still young, and I am pretty sure they would regret their actions as they do not really mean to kill the person. It would be sort of an act of rashness. Or, we could put them on probation, and if they still show some signs of violence, then we could then take other actions.
For the parents to be held responsible part, I would think that it is not necessary. After all, just as I have said, parents could not follow their children twenty-four hours per day and stop them from doing anything wrong. We should learn to be responsible for what we do, or else, we would start to have this mindset that "My parents are being held responsible for whatever I do so I can do whatever I feel like doing." This way, teenagers would be more likely to commit crimes. Only by being responsible ourselves, then we could learn to stay out of trouble.
Everyone deserves a second chance. I guess this statement is always true, and thus, the 16 year old boy should be given a second chance to repent. However, I would say (again) that his (step)parents are not to blame for what he have done so they should not be held responsible.
-HUIQING! (:
We should put the juveniles who commit criminal offences like manslaughter, murder, rape, arson and other violent crimes into boys/girls' home and to be sent for counselling. They are still young, and I am pretty sure they would regret their actions as they do not really mean to kill the person. It would be sort of an act of rashness. Or, we could put them on probation, and if they still show some signs of violence, then we could then take other actions.
For the parents to be held responsible part, I would think that it is not necessary. After all, just as I have said, parents could not follow their children twenty-four hours per day and stop them from doing anything wrong. We should learn to be responsible for what we do, or else, we would start to have this mindset that "My parents are being held responsible for whatever I do so I can do whatever I feel like doing." This way, teenagers would be more likely to commit crimes. Only by being responsible ourselves, then we could learn to stay out of trouble.
Everyone deserves a second chance. I guess this statement is always true, and thus, the 16 year old boy should be given a second chance to repent. However, I would say (again) that his (step)parents are not to blame for what he have done so they should not be held responsible.
-HUIQING! (:
when good wombs bear bad sons.
What are your thoughts on having a parental responsibility law?
A parental responsibility law ensures that parents do their jobs as parents to educate and discipline their child while they are still understage, and most probably still unable to think and act maturely.
If you support such a law, how can the law be enforced?
The law can be enforced when the child breaks the law and it is provened that the parents did not do their parts as parents to teach and guide the child.
What are the suggested punishments (counselling, jail, fines, pay for damages, community work, etc.)?
Counselling for both parents and child. Putting child in boys' or girls' home if they break the laws frequently. Pay for damages and fine the parents.
What kinds of violations or offences require which type or level of penalties and why? Will such laws help to reduce juvenile deliquency?
Murder, robbery, rape, arson, joining street gangs, getting into fights, taking drugs..
Such laws will be able to help to reduce juvenile deliquency. Parents will keep a lookout on their child's doings and they will care of their child. The children will not be given much chance to violate the laws.
In the case of the 16 year old boy who was charged with murder, what do you think the law should do to him? To his (step)parents?
He should be given a chance, but still punished. And his step parents should be punished (maybe fine), and both parents and child should be counselled.
zoeyneo(:
3faith.
A parental responsibility law ensures that parents do their jobs as parents to educate and discipline their child while they are still understage, and most probably still unable to think and act maturely.
If you support such a law, how can the law be enforced?
The law can be enforced when the child breaks the law and it is provened that the parents did not do their parts as parents to teach and guide the child.
What are the suggested punishments (counselling, jail, fines, pay for damages, community work, etc.)?
Counselling for both parents and child. Putting child in boys' or girls' home if they break the laws frequently. Pay for damages and fine the parents.
What kinds of violations or offences require which type or level of penalties and why? Will such laws help to reduce juvenile deliquency?
Murder, robbery, rape, arson, joining street gangs, getting into fights, taking drugs..
Such laws will be able to help to reduce juvenile deliquency. Parents will keep a lookout on their child's doings and they will care of their child. The children will not be given much chance to violate the laws.
In the case of the 16 year old boy who was charged with murder, what do you think the law should do to him? To his (step)parents?
He should be given a chance, but still punished. And his step parents should be punished (maybe fine), and both parents and child should be counselled.
zoeyneo(:
3faith.
When good wombs bear bad sons
A parent has a responsibility to teach their child.
I think that everyone should have morals and a sense of what is right and what is wrong. Laws are almost always made up around the people in the society's morals. For instance, the reason that there are laws for the 16 years old who murdered the disc jockey is because the morals of the people in our society say that killing and stealing are wrong and should be punished. Without morals we would have no laws. Without morals we would have no society. Without morals, we may as well live in the middle of the woods without any kind of society at all. Morals are needed in order to have a safe and productive society. Since society is made up of the people within it, people need to have morals in order to be safe and productive.
Parents also have a moral responsibility to teach their child morals. According to most philosophical and family scientists, the primary purpose of the family is teach a child as he or she grows up. Part of this teaching is teaching the child morals. The responsibility for a child's actions rests with the parent, and if a parent expects their child to act responsibly, they need to teach him or her morals. The responsibility to teach children morals belongs to the parents of a child.
A parent must be allowed to know everything that their child is doing in order for them to teach their children right from wrong.
If the father or the step mother of the 16 year old boy had taught him about this or know what he is doing, will he still be in this state?
by victoria
I think that everyone should have morals and a sense of what is right and what is wrong. Laws are almost always made up around the people in the society's morals. For instance, the reason that there are laws for the 16 years old who murdered the disc jockey is because the morals of the people in our society say that killing and stealing are wrong and should be punished. Without morals we would have no laws. Without morals we would have no society. Without morals, we may as well live in the middle of the woods without any kind of society at all. Morals are needed in order to have a safe and productive society. Since society is made up of the people within it, people need to have morals in order to be safe and productive.
Parents also have a moral responsibility to teach their child morals. According to most philosophical and family scientists, the primary purpose of the family is teach a child as he or she grows up. Part of this teaching is teaching the child morals. The responsibility for a child's actions rests with the parent, and if a parent expects their child to act responsibly, they need to teach him or her morals. The responsibility to teach children morals belongs to the parents of a child.
A parent must be allowed to know everything that their child is doing in order for them to teach their children right from wrong.
If the father or the step mother of the 16 year old boy had taught him about this or know what he is doing, will he still be in this state?
by victoria
When ladies’ night isn’t for all ladies
Wed nights are known to clubbers as the night when ladies needn’t be ashamed of entering a club free and having drinks on the house. After all, that’s all “Ladies’ Night” is about, isn’t it? Ladies’ Nights usually starts after 9pm and it goes on for the entire evening.Although it was a ladies’ night, there was probably an equal number of males present, and didn’t seem to have any less a good time than the ladies. It is so impossible for gender equality to exist.
Why do clubs have ladies' night? From the point of the club, they know the ladies will bring in a friend or two to keep her company and watch their back so if she should get to drunk and make sure she get to her own house vice some one else’s that she may have just meet. Second, the guys will come in to check out the ladies to see what is happening and who is back for another visit. So, I think that the club is right about not allowing her to go in to the club. It was also stated that the maximum age for the ladies’ night is 35.
by victoria
Why do clubs have ladies' night? From the point of the club, they know the ladies will bring in a friend or two to keep her company and watch their back so if she should get to drunk and make sure she get to her own house vice some one else’s that she may have just meet. Second, the guys will come in to check out the ladies to see what is happening and who is back for another visit. So, I think that the club is right about not allowing her to go in to the club. It was also stated that the maximum age for the ladies’ night is 35.
by victoria
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
RE: When good womb bear bad sons
I myself feel that having a parental responsitbility law is important as parents need to take responsibility for what the actions of their children. The discipline of the offspring would be the responsibility of their parents. If the parents are unresponsible then they have to face the consequences.
I support such a law as it forces unresponsible parents to pull up their socks and care and discipline any unruly children.
The law can be enforced be sending offenders for psychiatric treatment, counselling, to prison, etc.
Juvenile delinquency can be lowered by having more talks held in schools to explain the consequences to younbg children and drill it into their minds when they are young.
Did u c dis high son?
I myself feel that having a parental responsitbility law is important as parents need to take responsibility for what the actions of their children. The discipline of the offspring would be the responsibility of their parents. If the parents are unresponsible then they have to face the consequences.
I support such a law as it forces unresponsible parents to pull up their socks and care and discipline any unruly children.
The law can be enforced be sending offenders for psychiatric treatment, counselling, to prison, etc.
Juvenile delinquency can be lowered by having more talks held in schools to explain the consequences to younbg children and drill it into their minds when they are young.
Did u c dis high son?
Discrimination
The writer’s main point in this article is written very clearly in bold, ‘A woman’s self image is based on standards set by men and younger women…’ which simple means older women are being discriminated against.
I agree with the local nightspots’ decision to refuse women over 35 free drinks on ladies night only if the bar has stated it very clearly.
Perhaps yes, in a way many people may argue that this is discrimination. But look at it this way. Women over 35 are arguably less attractive than younger women. This is a fact based on science, simply that women over 35 have less chances of giving birth and hence appear less attractive to men.
We live in a pragmatic world, and we must know our worth. People go clubbing for many reasons, some to have fun, and a lot to meet new people and friends around their age. Obviously, most who go clubbing are around their 20s. Then naturally these nightspots want to attract them and give them special benefits. What is wrong with that?
It is like the Singapore government treating our own citizens better (giving them more benefits eg. Money when the economy is doing well, Medisave, CPF etc.) Is it discrimination that we do not give the money to foreigners?
Again why older men do not face such discrimination is because men can have children even at an older age and that again is a fact proved by science. Women who face age and sex discrimination is normal and a result of human instinct. Discrimination is a way of helping our species to continue, and is very necessary in daily life by telling us what is good and what is bad.
(due to time constraints I shall wrap this up)
What then can we do about discrimination? The only feasible solution is to prove that those being discriminated against can do for eg. jobs as well as their younger counterparts.
However this probably will not happen, the old should give way to the new, and instead act as mentors.
I agree with the local nightspots’ decision to refuse women over 35 free drinks on ladies night only if the bar has stated it very clearly.
Perhaps yes, in a way many people may argue that this is discrimination. But look at it this way. Women over 35 are arguably less attractive than younger women. This is a fact based on science, simply that women over 35 have less chances of giving birth and hence appear less attractive to men.
We live in a pragmatic world, and we must know our worth. People go clubbing for many reasons, some to have fun, and a lot to meet new people and friends around their age. Obviously, most who go clubbing are around their 20s. Then naturally these nightspots want to attract them and give them special benefits. What is wrong with that?
It is like the Singapore government treating our own citizens better (giving them more benefits eg. Money when the economy is doing well, Medisave, CPF etc.) Is it discrimination that we do not give the money to foreigners?
Again why older men do not face such discrimination is because men can have children even at an older age and that again is a fact proved by science. Women who face age and sex discrimination is normal and a result of human instinct. Discrimination is a way of helping our species to continue, and is very necessary in daily life by telling us what is good and what is bad.
(due to time constraints I shall wrap this up)
What then can we do about discrimination? The only feasible solution is to prove that those being discriminated against can do for eg. jobs as well as their younger counterparts.
However this probably will not happen, the old should give way to the new, and instead act as mentors.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)