Extraordinary low IQ (like 60) obviously mitigates moral culpability. 60 is bordering on retardation.

Get any lower and you have to question whether they have the cognitive capacity to appreciate their own actions, viz, be criminally liable.

but if low IQ is the reason they are excused, doesn't the parent of those kids have some degree of responsibly both on the ground they were young at the time, and of some limited mental capabilities

I think copius point is that, shouldn't the people who are responsible for these kids be held in some way accountable? I mean, they're obviously not capable of being responsible for their own actions, so what were they doing unsupervised in the first place? Otherwise we're just saying retarded people have free reign to roam around committing crimes without any sort of recrimination? That doesn't seem right.

If their IQ is that low, the parents need to be held responsible for the childs actions. They can't make judgement calls on their own and clearly need(ed) their guardian to supervise them instead of letting them go light fires that killed hundreds of people and caused bazillions in damages.

It's like Doli Incapax that gives children under 11 a free ride to any kind of criminal offence. Australian legal system is too lenient toward the offenders rather than the victim. It should be other way around. Sentencing is based on weighing Retributionm Rehabilitation and Deterrance, but we all know rehabilitation is a joke. Recidivism in N.S.W. is 66%, once you are in a system, you will be stuck in an endless loop.
Criminal justice system should be reformed to lay out harsher punishment for offenders rather than trying to "rehabilitate" them. Unlike children who are able to distinguish from right and wrong, mentally challenged people cannot, they don't have the mental capacity to distinguish from socially acceptable behaviour to unacceptable behaviour.

Interesting that the news.com.au article I read earlier made no mention whatsoever of insufficient evidence - they just went for outrage journalism.

They made it nice and clear that the judge had said that the two were even mentally incapable of understanding with and dealing with their legal representation to comprehend the ramifications of any decisions they make during the legal proceedings.

good point hoggy, however you also have age as a factor, I agree that low IQ doesn't prevent people from roaming around, and some do quite well in life,

I think i might change the thread title, to "should caregivers/guardian be responsible for the actions of those in their care"

the law has given those in "charge" of looking after things fines in the past, why not now

eg,
your dog gets out, mauls a kid, you wear the charges and are deemed responsible, (and the dog dies)
in fact, that pretty much applies to all animals, horses, cows, lions,

if you park your car, hand brake on, in neutral (or park for an auto), and the car moves (jumps into gear while idling or rolls down a hill) you wear the charges and are deemed responsible,

odd, regarding the ABC news item, it was the ABC i heard it on

so if i do something stupid i just gotta pretend to be really dumb and f*** up an iq test given to me and get off? Awesome

jeez, 60 IQ? That's hella low. Oh well, at least he's qualified to do traffic control!

You keep a dog in a pen, and on a leash. Do you want low-IQ people to be restrained like that? Seems inhumane.

Keeping people in a pen or on a leash is obviously taking the argument to the absurd extreme, but yes they should be kept under supervision and not be allowed to just wander around starting fires. I mean, if they're legally not capable of being responsible for their actions, then surely somebody else has to be responsible for them. You can't just say "Well, you're not capable of making or understanding the consequences of your own decisions, now go out into the world and live your own life".

So you think the parents have to supervise their retarded off-spring 24/7? The only real way to ensure they are supervised like that is to control their movements to such an extent that you are imprisoning them. It's not just retarded kids that do stupid s*** either, even then I wouldn't shift the blame completely from the child to the parent just because the child can't be held accountable.

hoggy, please re-read my threads, i'm not comparing low IQ to dogs,

I'm Comparing the responsibly of care givers, and the blame given to those parties

If your 13 year old son (IQ of 130) beats the living out of a granny on school holiday, should the parent take some of the blame

if your dog mauls a granny, you sure as s*** get the blame

Sure they probably do, but how can we determine criminal negligence and culpability?

Should they have been restrained by a pen or a leash, basically imprisoned? If not, then what if one parent was at work and one was taking a s*** and the 15 year olds just pissed off? Or do both parents need to be home at all times so one parent can keep an eye literally on the retards 24/7 or they are criminally negligent?

What if your elderly parent is a bit demented, wanders off and causes a huge car accident? Are you culpable, because you knew this could happen? Why not? What about the down syndrome adults who live independently but have a chance of f*****g up and causing a house fire? Who is to blame?

S*** happens. There isn't always someone to blame.

hoggy, please re-read my threads, i'm not comparing low IQ to dogs,

...

if your dog mauls a granny, you sure as s*** get the blame

But you are comparing humans to dogs every time. You are expected to imprison your animals, but you are not allowed to do that with teenagers.

Its against the law.

hoggy, fyi, I have known of a care facility getting charged for police time, and damages caused by someone in their care wondering off, (he jumped over the fence) and we (SES) had to search for him (he thought he was rambo, and was evading the enemy) so, does that answer your question?

No it doesn't - in this case qualified health care providers failed in their duty of care and negligence was established by the courts. I've said in my posts that the parents MAY be negligent, but that we don't have enough evidence to assert that.

This is NOT the same as "if a 60 IQ teenager ever does damage then the parents are ALWAYS culpable".

If the parents work, and can't supervise their children when their children have special needs and are in need of constant supervision, then they should hire a carer who CAN be there full time. Same as if you have an elderly parent living with you who is incapable of looking after themselves and you can't commit the time needed to look after them, then you can hire a nurse/caregiver for them, or put them in a home where they will get the care and supervision they need.

If you don't do these things, and are happy to just let your kids run off and set fires or let your elderly demented relative wander off and stand in the road and get hit by a car, then yes, you should be deemed negligent and you should be to blame.

If the parents work, and can't supervise their children when their children have special needs and are in need of constant supervision, then they should hire a carer who CAN be there full time. Same as if you have an elderly parent living with you who is incapable of looking after themselves and you can't commit the time needed to look after them, then you can hire a nurse/caregiver for them, or put them in a home where they will get the care and supervision they need.

You're detached from reality for this. Do you have any idea how few places in facilities are available? How little support there is? Have you had any direct experience in the care arrangements for those with mental issues, or raising children?

A 60-IQ kid wouldn't even rate a respite day, and very few families can afford the sort of care you're talking about. Its not the parent's fault they have a mentally challenged child, but you're happy to lumber them with 100% culpability if it ever, ever goes wrong.

what your saying that the parents have nil responsibly for their kids actions

You've again deliberately misrepresented my position. Stop it.

I've said they MAY be culpable but there is not enough evidence. You're saying that the parents are ALWAYS to blame which is 100% untrue.

Not their fault, but still their responsibility. Sure, its a hard situation to be in, but it doesn't absolve them of responsibility. I feel sorry for people who are in that situation, but that doesn't make it ok to turn a blind eye while your kids run off and light fires.

But we don't know they did that.

What if Daddy was off preparing the property for the fire season and Mummy had to take a s***, and they ran off to play in the bush? Should she have (probably illegally) locked the teenagers up somewhere before taking a dump? What if they were off shopping somewhere and just plain old RAN AWAY because you can't put kids on leashes!?

We don't know ANYTHING about what happened, but you're quite ready to get out the pitchforks and torches. Fortunately the law doesn't work like that! The parents are not automatically culpable, actual negligence must be first established.

Hoggy - you'll see I gave up on this thread a while back. I suggest you go play solitaire or something.

Yeh I have work to do :P

So if you're a sole parent with low-IQ teenagers and need to s***, what should you do, Khel?

Everybody poops.

put the retarded kids in jail/down...

Yeah lets have 2 kids that are 'stupid' running around lighting fires that kill and cause massive damage...

get death needles and insert into arm, they had their turn and they f***ed up

yeah i'd be careful with that line of thinking if i were you sc00bs
only a very short move of the marker and you're included in that field

FYI, Hoggy and I talked and we are all OK with our positions.

So if you're a sole parent with low-IQ teenagers and need to s***, what should you do, Khel?

I'd imagine if you were raising kids like that, you'd have solutions. Shutting the front and back doors of the house before going to have a s*** would be an obvious first step.

I'm going to keep saying retarded, because its more medically accurate.

The terms used to describe this condition are subject to a process called the euphemism treadmill. This means that whatever term is chosen for this condition, it eventually becomes perceived as an insult. The terms mental retardation and mentally retarded were invented in the middle of the 20th century to replace the previous set of terms, which were deemed to have become offensive. By the end of the 20th century, these terms themselves have come to be widely seen as disparaging and politically incorrect and in need of replacement. The term intellectual disability or intellectually challenged is now preferred by most advocates in most English-speaking countries. Clinically, however, mental retardation is a subtype of intellectual disability, which is a broader concept and includes intellectual deficits that are too mild to properly qualify as mental retardation, too specific (as in specific learning disability), or acquired later in life, through acquired brain injuries or neurodegenerative diseases like dementia.

I'd imagine if you were raising kids like that, you'd have solutions. Shutting the front and back doors of the house before going to have a s*** would be an obvious first step.

But its so obvious and easy, right? What if they've had inadequate public support to come up with these 'solutions' ... solutions that a lay person can't describe? Given that they have to watch the f*****g kids EVERY F*****NG SECOND of their lives, or be hung in the Khel court of public opinion, they better get it right!

Anyway, are you talking about locking them inside the house (ie, imprisoning them)? Are you sure its legal to imprison 15 year olds, even low-IQ ones? Are there safety issues you haven't considered here?

What about in public / outside? They're a bit stupid but they're still 15 and young and can probably outrun you very easily. Some sort of leash / harness arrangement perhaps? A taser or stun gun to bring them down in an emergency - like if the dangerous little bastards look like they might get away?

Of course there is, Khel is sure of it!

That's why the parents are culpable every single time. No excuses, straight to jail for those motherf*****s, they basically set the fire themselves, right?

We don't even need a trial, they admitted culpability by conceding that they were the parents!

So you're saying that because the kids did it, that the parents are guilty of culpable negligence, no matter what?

Its just common sense, its utterly illogical and plain outright stupid to believe the only solutions are taking no responsibility for your kids, or tieing them up with leashes and treating them like dogs. I don't even know why I'm needing to point that out.

So if its so simple, why can't you post the solution? Its obvious right?

How do you have a physically able teenager child outside, under your care, and make 100% sure he can never escape your control? And that's never ever, because in the Khel Court if they get away, you're responsible for their actions.

So you're saying that because the kids did it, that the parents are guilty of culpable negligence, no matter what?

Well, for a start, I never made any blanket claims like that, you're putting words in my mouth. I started off talking about this specific instance, and then broadened a bit into talking about parents of children in general who are incapable of looking after themselves or making or understanding the consequences of their own decisions. I asked questions in my first post about why the children were there unsupervised in the first place? And I said that if people who are caring for children, or old relatives, who need a higher level of special attention, supervision and care fail to deliver on that level of care, then they should be deemed negligent.

Of course Khel you can say whatever you like just beaware some find it offensive

Yeah, thats true, and tbh I try and not use it as much I have in the past, because I have inadvertently offended a couple of people in the past. But in a discussion like this, its not really being used in an offensive way (well, not much).

Its hard to imagine because we're not all parents.. but kids get out, kids do stupid s***, kids hurt themselves and kids hurt others.. Parenting is more about preparing them for that s*** and hoping they'll make the right decisions then anything else...

This is true. I can't keep an 18 month old boy feet away from me from hurting himself because he thinks he can climb s***.

How you're supposed to control teenagers 100% scares the s*** out of me! If they do something really stupid (and we ALL did really stupid things, or were very boring teenagers) and cost someone a lot of money you have no doubt that righteous people assuming its because you're a criminally bad parent.

Retard is defined as someone with an IQ of below 70. So, someone who is incredibly dumb. Why is it offensive to use a warm hearted colloquial term to compare someone, or yourself, to a person who is incredibly dumb.

Example "F*** I'm retarded. I forgot to lodge my tax return and got fined.'

For example, i use the term 'n****' towards someone who is engaged in criminal activity. It really has nothing to do with race.. it's got to do with the fact african americans are responsible for more crime in the U.S and in the past were referred to as n****s. Clearly, it's not offensive. It's a warm hearted, jovial term.

Example "Some white n****s broke into my house and stole my T.V. Damn N****s."

Both are terms which often get taken out of context. The same thing goes with 'homo.' Homosexuals love each other, so the term itself is a loving term.

Example : "OMG, homo. Can you not get the chat working in BF3!! S***.. some homo just pumped me!!!"

It's all in context. America is just hypersensitive to those words. They're idiots. I think in Australia, we are able to use those words in a humorous, loving way and not be offended by it.

So what if some people find it offensive. I find things offensive in my life and don't expect the whole world to change around me. It smacks of selfishness.

It was insufficient evidence wasn't it? A retard with a match is not enough to secure conviction. Plus no witnesses etc.. The press often plays up the wrong reason why the legal system came to it's conclusion. In this case, cos they were retards. Not the case... it was lack of evidence.. the whole innocent until PROVEN guilty thing.

Clearly, it's not offensive. It's a warm hearted, jovial term.

It's cool, just like Randal Graves, Shambler's just takin' the word back.
http://www.no-clutter.com/gallery/albums/motivational/porch_monkey.jpg

For example, i use the term 'n****' towards someone who is engaged in criminal activity. It really has nothing to do with race.. it's got to do with the fact african americans are responsible for more crime in the U.S and in the past were referred to as n****s. Clearly, it's not offensive. It's a warm hearted, jovial term.

lmao dat trollll

Clearly this is an argument for eugenics