dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1424
share rss forum feed

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
reply to BonezX

Re: Parental responsibility

said by BonezX:

yes, but if you already have a settlement through a criminal case, it doesn't make sense that you can approach the civil court for a second settlement for the same thing. it would completely defeat the purpose of the criminal procedure giving restitution or applying fines in the first place.

What you have in a criminal case, if there is no restitution order, is a dispute between society and the perp. The courts main consideration is the imposition of sentence under the criminal code and not making the victim whole financially. Lets say some dude walks up and says, "heh there's that BonerX dude that lives in mommies basement jerking off all day lets put the smack down on him". And they do and you miss a week of work and the judge locks them up for a month. Then you go, "that sucks dude, I'm out $400.00 for a weeks pay.


BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
kudos:1
said by peterboro:

said by BonezX:

yes, but if you already have a settlement through a criminal case, it doesn't make sense that you can approach the civil court for a second settlement for the same thing. it would completely defeat the purpose of the criminal procedure giving restitution or applying fines in the first place.

What you have in a criminal case, if there is no restitution order, is a dispute between society and the perp. The courts main consideration is the imposition of sentence under the criminal code and not making the victim whole financially. Lets say some dude walks up and says, "heh there's that BonerX dude that lives in mommies basement jerking off all day lets put the smack down on him". And they do and you miss a week of work and the judge locks them up for a month. Then you go, "that sucks dude, I'm out $400.00 for a weeks pay.

that's the thing though, if restitution is already handled by the criminal case(which we don't know if it is or not in this case) why should the party be able to get a second restitution is what my issue is.

if the kid has been charged for shoplifting (which means they were caught and the product returned to the store) fines have been levied and restitution has been set by the court (if they were caught and the goods returned it would make sense for it to be zero being there was no actual loss) what right does a party that already has restitution assigned by the court or the court has found no loss on their part as the victim (being stolen goods recovered in condition that allows for sale) have that allows them to literally circumvent the system and basically "double dip" any restitution payments that the criminal court has given, or get restitution where the criminal courts have proven that there is no loss.

in the case of assault, you are given restitution as part of the original case, if the court does not give you restitution where there has been loss, then there was a gross miscarriage of justice on the courts part.

get what I'm saying ?

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
Restitution, and stand alone restitution orders are not that common and the victim has to press the Crown to argue for them. Often even with a restitution order the perps don't pay and you have to go to civil court.

But if there is a restitution order you won't prevail in civil court until the probation period is extinguished.


CanadianRip

join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON
reply to Gone
said by Gone:

And really, before you go throwing around the word "socialism" like some kind of smartass, you could do us all a favour and actually know what it is before using the term and realize it has zero do to with topics such as this.

Absolutely it does - it's part of a mindset that society shares the responsibility for each other's well being. In this case, apparently it includes raising each other's children through school.

I'm going to assume you haven't raised any children to adulthood. So with that in mind I'll let you spend some time reflecting on this question. If a teacher has more influence over my own child then I do, am I a good parent?

If you answer yes to that question, something has already gone terribly wrong in your parenting attempts.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by CanadianRip:

If you answer yes to that question, something has already gone terribly wrong in your parenting attempts.

To which, you have already proven that something went terrible, terribly wrong with your education in those schools that your parents were legally required to send you for most of the day during weekdays, which in turn has produced a rather skewed and simplistic understanding of the world around you.

But whatever, simplistic one-dimensional thinking and intellectual dishonesty - either intentionally or through ignorance - is particularly rife among people who blame everything on "socialism" without even knowing that socialism actually is.

If you have raised children to adulthood, I hope they have had the benefit of a better education and a better depth of understanding of the world around them than you have.


CanadianRip

join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON
said by Gone:

If you have raised children to adulthood, I hope they have had the benefit of a better education and a better depth of understanding of the world around them than you have.

If you blame anyone other then yourself for anything in your life, you're already setup with a mindset of failure on any topic. If you wish to look at the single largest difference between someone who is successful at something versus not - you'll note the key difference is who they hold accountable for their successes or failures. Until you move forward in your life with that key understanding, you're doomed to mediocrity at best.

Understanding the nuance behind mindset and what Marx actually wrote is the difference between an evaluative understanding versus a textual one. While Socialism at it's root was intended as an economic system, in modern days it's been perverted to represent a ground of people who think their environment to provide for them.

We obfuscate the fact that the only one responsible for anything in this world is you.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
Wrong. There are plenty of things other than just "you" that can be responsible for the problems in your life that are beyond your control. Acknowledging this fact of life does not lead to failure. It is only how you respond to those issues and tackle those problems that is your responsibility alone and the response itself is a direct reflection on your character and your success in life, not the problem.

And socialism is still an economic system. Period. Claiming it is anything beyond that goes back to the intellectual dishonesty I mentioned earlier. Just because someone repeatedly says something untrue does not suddenly make it true.


CanadianRip

join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON
said by Gone:

And socialism is still an economic system. Period. Claiming it is anything beyond that goes back to the intellectual dishonesty I mentioned earlier. Just because someone repeatedly says something untrue does not suddenly make it true.

Fair enough - but it still doesn't represent the cultural understanding of the word. Unless you're one of those people that believes grammar and language does not change.

said by Gone:

Wrong. There are plenty of things other than just "you" that can be responsible for the problems in your life that are beyond your control. Acknowledging this fact of life does not lead to failure. It is only how you respond to those issues and tackle those problems that is your responsibility alone and the response itself is a direct reflection on your character and your success in life, not the problem.

You have no control of those things, the only thing you can control is you. So everything outside of you is completely irrelevant. If you want to be happy and successful you need to focus only on you.

Simple example: There is no food in this area because of drought.

Solution: You migrate to greener pastures.

Problem: The school I send my child too is training bad habits about how to set goals.

Solution: You spend 2 hours per evening re-training your child on goal setting.

See how that works?


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

1 edit
said by CanadianRip:

Fair enough - but it still doesn't represent the cultural understanding of the word. Unless you're one of those people that believes grammar and language does not change.

No, I am merely one of those people who believes that people can't use their own opinions and modify a word to mean something that it doesn't actually mean.

said by Gone:

See how that works?

To quote,

said by CanadianRip:
If you blame anyone other then yourself for anything in your life, you're already setup with a mindset of failure on any topic.
I can blame my lack of food on the drought all I want, and I can bitch and moan and whine about it. The dought isn't my fault. It is only my response that I have direct control. This does not mean I'm not allowed to bitch about the drought, though, and my bitching does not mean I have failed.

A better example is this: Someone who is physically or mentally disabled and unable to work isn't the one to blame for the fact that they now rely on government assistance to live and are unable to work. Living within their means and attempting to remain relevant and contribute what they can to their community is the only thing directly under their control in their life. The fact that this is all they can accomplish due to circumstances beyond their control does not make them a failure.

Edit - to which, it doesn't matter what you do with your child if you're sending them right back to the source of a problem and have no ability to change that despite all your efforts. The end result does not mean you have failed, no matter what you may think.

Get it? Or does such pragmatism make me a socialist?


CanadianRip

join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON
said by Gone:

Get it? Or does such pragmatism make me a socialist?

Not really, because in your original comment you where stating it's the schools fault and not the parents which seems to contradict what you're saying in this post.

We can all waste our time bitching and complaining, God knows I do enough of it. But it's always a mistake. End of the day whatever the circumstance is, it's our fault.

If you're a quadriplegic and you want to be the worlds fastest triathlete, it's your fault for attempting such an incredible and you should be more realistic. You will likely fail at this task.

There's a big difference between complaining, and assigning accountability. Absolutely where you assign accountability determines success or failure. If you're not accountable for something, it's never on you to take care of business.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by CanadianRip:

Not really, because in your original comment you where stating it's the schools fault and not the parents which seems to contradict what you're saying in this post.

In the case of legal liability when determining who should be supervising a child to ensure that they don't go steal something, the school should be responsible - absolutely. The parents, after all, entrusted the school with the supervision of their child during the day. Whether or not you like that is irrelevant.

The parents would have no ability to supervise that child during that time to ensure they behave properly, regardless of whatever training or supervision the end up providing them at home.

If your mind is already made up and you are unable to see this beyond an issue of black and white, I obviously cannot help you further.


CanadianRip

join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON
said by Gone:

The parents would have no ability to supervise that child during that time to ensure they behave properly, regardless of whatever training or supervision the end up providing them at home.

A good parent doesn't need to follow around their children to get them to obey laws. A good parent would gladly accept accountability for such a lapse in parenting that their child would shop lift.

Personally if any of my children had ever done that, I would deal with it and reimburse the store and be embarrassed about the entire incident, not cry to the media like some baby. Then my child would deal with the appropriate punishment.

Go ahead and blame the school, but ask yourself how all the other kids at that same school that day managed to stay there and not commit a crime. Then remind me how it's the schools fault this happened.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by CanadianRip:

Personally if any of my children had ever done that, I would deal with it and reimburse the store and be embarrassed about the entire incident, not cry to the media like some baby. Then my child would deal with the appropriate punishment.

Haha bullshit. The sanctimonious ones tend to be the biggest hypocrites when it comes to following through themselves what they demand others to do. Based on all the self-righteous demagoguery you've shared with us here, there is absolutely nothing you could ever say to convince me otherwise.


CanadianRip

join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON
said by Gone:

Haha bullshit. The sanctimonious ones tend to be the biggest hypocrites when it comes to following through themselves what they demand others to do. Based on all the self-righteous demagoguery you've shared with us here, there is absolutely nothing you could ever say to convince me otherwise.

Really, so you would go advertise to the media your child is a shoplifter. The shameless there alone has me shake my head, that's not sanctimony at all. I mean, honestly who wouldn't be ashamed of that? Seriously walk into a crowded room and announce your child is a shoplifter and tell me how proud of that statement you would be. Tell me you'd have an expectation of them patting you on the shoulder saying, there there -it's all the schools fault.

You can assume all you like about me - it's pointless to discuss anything when all the other side has left is hurling unfounded insults based on supposition.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by CanadianRip:

Really, so you would go advertise to the media your child is a shoplifter. The shameless there alone has me shake my head, that's not sanctimony at all. I mean, honestly who wouldn't be ashamed of that? Seriously walk into a crowded room and announce your child is a shoplifter and tell me how proud of that statement you would be. Tell me you'd have an expectation of them patting you on the shoulder saying, there there -it's all the schools fault.

No, I wouldn't advertise it, but I wouldn't allow someone to extort me when they have no legal grounds or means to do so. Your comments about being so very sure you would provide restitution to the company if your child was caught shoplifting is what makes your comment sanctimonious and worth nothing more than a laugh. No one - not even you, no matter what you say - would pay $500-$900 to a company in addition to the legal sanctions their child already faced.

said by CanadianRip:

when all the other side has left is hurling unfounded insults based on supposition.

Calling someone an asshole, a douchebag or a dumbass is an insult. Pointing out that someone is being over the top and laying it on thick with their comments is not an insult, no matter how much you may not like it. You would do well to learn the difference between the two, because crying about non-existent insults only furthers my point about laying it on thick and being over the top.


J E F F
Whatta Ya Think About Dat?
Premium
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1
reply to I_H8_Spam
While it doesn't explain so in the article, could Shoppers be doing this instead of having the kid criminally charged?
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. - Albert Einstein

graniterock
Premium
join:2003-03-14
London, ON
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to donoreo
said by donoreo:

said by I_H8_Spam:

I would say 12, before which the YOA doesn't apply so the responsibility should fall to the Guardian. Over 12 then you have the YOA and Crown to deal with.

That seems reasonable.

Of course many parents would not go for that.

How old is Grade 9? I was looking after other people's children at that age. Responsible enough to babysit = responsible enough to pay restitution for my crimes.

Under 12 it should default / parents should counter sue the appointed responsible guardian at the time (which may not be parents).


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by graniterock:

Responsible enough to babysit = responsible enough to pay restitution for my crimes.

Funny how people seem so gung-ho about teenagers being responsible enough to be accountable for their actions when it comes to criminal sanctions and the restitution associated with them, yet these same people rarely would ever find these same kids responsible enough to drink alcohol, vote for their elected representatives or enter into a legally-binding contract for goods and services.

Yeah. Funny that.

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
reply to J E F F
said by J E F F:

While it doesn't explain so in the article, could Shoppers be doing this instead of having the kid criminally charged?

I think it comes down to pure economics and they will still pursue criminal charges to help perfect the civil claim. Shoppers spent X dollars in personnel time to deal with this and they no longer are going to absorb it as the cost of being a retail outlet.

jaberi

join:2010-08-13
how can the school be responsible when the parents do not want schools to reprimand their kids?


J E F F
Whatta Ya Think About Dat?
Premium
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Rogers Portable ..
reply to peterboro
They were $15 earrings. While they have the right to go after punitive damages in small claims, I'm unsure of the amount.

I have the feeling that they called the parents, told them they won't press charges if the parents pony up for associated costs. Parents said 'sure' and they got this crazy bill.

However...if it were my kid, I'd pay the $500, and make my kid work off the $500.

Everyone wins:

1. The kid because he/she won't have a record (though it's deleted at 18) and will have a lesson learned.
2. The parents because they don't have go to court over the matter.
3. The retailer because they are getting their costs back.
4. The criminal system because they have bigger fish to fry.
5. The public because this kid won't be doing this again.

That assumes reasonably smart parents.
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. - Albert Einstein


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by J E F F:

That assumes reasonably smart parents.

The thing you fail to understand is that the $500 being demanded from the lawyer is irrelevant to the criminal proceedings, not an alternative to it. Points 1 through 5 will occur (or not occur) regardless of whether they pay that money or tell them to sod off and take them to court.

People don't get to chose not to press charges. That's up to the Crown. You can suggest to the Crown that you don't want criminal charges pursued, but your thoughts on the matter are really of no consequence and if they have sufficient evidence and believe it is of public interest they can go ahead and do it anyway. They can proceed with charges despite your objection, and just the same they can either not proceed with or quickly drop charges even though you want someone thrown in jail.

You do have the option to proceed with private prosecution of the Crown doesn't want to pursue charges, but at that point you're on the hook for all expenses, and there have been occasions (*coughJulianFantinocough*) where private prosecution against an individual had been initiated, only for the Crown to take over the case - which is well within their right - and then drop it shortly thereafter.


CanadianRip

join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON
reply to Gone
said by Gone:

You would do well to learn the difference between the two, because crying about non-existent insults only furthers my point about laying it on thick and being over the top.

Well you've already suggested I'm uneducated which is somehow not an insult - so obviously learning this would be beyond me.

said by Gone:

No one - not even you, no matter what you say - would pay $500-$900 to a company in addition to the legal sanctions their child already faced.

Nope - wouldn't have to, I would have dealt with it instead of avoiding accountability. The Pharmacist wouldn't have felt they had to deal with it through a lawsuit. End of the day I can almost guarantee you that that's all the Franchise owner was after. The laissez-faire parents to actually do their job and parent their children.

Do you think for a second if this parent showed up with the child made them pay for the stolen merchandise and apologize and promise never to enter the store that the owner would waste his or her time with any of this?

Everything else out of your keyboard has been a bunch of specious non-sense trying to defend your absurd position. Because if you're sincere in your belief that its all the School's fault - I really hope you don't and choose never have children.

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
said by CanadianRip:

Do you think for a second if this parent showed up with the child made them pay for the stolen merchandise and apologize and promise never to enter the store that the owner would waste his or her time with any of this?

It may affect the motivations of the franchisee but I think these are corporate decisions based on fiscal recovery beyond the pharmacist's intentions.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to CanadianRip
said by CanadianRip:

Nope - wouldn't have to, I would have dealt with it instead of avoiding accountability.

You're operating on the assumption that you would have even known any of this was going on until you got a call from the local police service advising you that your child was being charged with theft under $5000 and to come to the station to pick him/her up.

At that point, you're SOL as far as "dealing with it" goes, and your assumption that you could is nothing but hot air that goes to my previous points about sanctimonious comments that you would never follow through on. Sure, you can go to the store, talk to the manager, apologize, and they'll smile say it's okay blah blah blah but when it comes down to it, as peterboro already mentioned, you're still going to get that extortion letter in the mail - a letter for which I have no doubt in my mind you would never follow through on.

said by CanadianRip:

Everything else out of your keyboard has been a bunch of specious non-sense trying to defend your absurd position. Because if you're sincere in your belief that its all the School's fault - I really hope you don't and choose never have children.

... and everything out of your keyboard has been nothing but a bunch of sanctimonious bullshit from someone who blames all the ills of the world on "socialism" and does not understand the realities of the way corporations and the legal system work. It's not the 1960s anymore.

And I do have a son, he's wonderful and in my mind better and smarter than any children you could ever have or hope to have.


Crazycanuckz

@reliablehosting.com
reply to J E F F
Better yet make the kid work at the place where he stole from for at least 6 months.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by Crazycanuckz :

Better yet make the kid work at the place where he stole from for at least 6 months.

Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't change the fact that despite all your good intentions, they'll probably sue you anyway.