Preventing violence in schools with parenting
Charles Rice
Right or Wrong?
If your dog bit someone, you could be civilly and perhaps criminally liable even if the dog had never bitten anyone before. Is your duty to control your dog greater than a parent's duty to control his child? The question arises in the wake of the Santana High School shootings in Santee, Ca. Charles Andrew Williams, 15, will be tried as an adult for killing two students and wounding 13 with his father's revolver.
At common law, the parent (or guardian) could be liable for injury caused by his child where the parent had notice of the child's dangerous tendency and failed to prevent the injury by reasonably controlling the child. Most states also impose parental liability by statute, up to a stated amount, for a child's torts or, in some states, "criminal gang" activity. Many states impose criminal liability on parents for crimes committed by their minor children, especially with firearms, if there is intent or criminal negligence on the part of the parent and the parent's act or failure caused the child's act.
Parental liability laws are sound in principle but difficult to enforce. Their efficacy is debatable. "Punishing parents for their children's behavior," wrote Professor Naomi Cahn of George Washington University, is "retribution, rather than prevention and rehabilitation. It sends a confusing message to juveniles that they are ... responsible for their actions yet ... not fully culpable because it is their parents who have failed to exercise ... supervision."
Stricter enforcement of parental liability would probably not have prevented the killings at Santana and other schools. Nor is it likely that those killings would have been avoided by stricter gun control, more police and metal detectors at schools and other measures which address symptoms.
Santana High had taken precautions. Students could report threats anonymously, the principal had SWAT training and a sheriff's deputy was on part-time duty at the school. Seven full-time supervisors patrolled the campus. Extra phones, radios and speakers were in place to spread word of trouble quickly. Programs encouraged students to get along, including one called, "Names can really hurt us."
Such efforts are worthwhile. But, as Education Secretary Rod Paige said, "It's beyond guns. The guns may be the instrument of the violence, but they're not the cause of the violence." One cause is the collapse of the American family. Marisa McFedries, director of the City of Santee teen center, said, "Something's missing in these kids' lives. They're on their own. Their parents work all the time. Their peers have become family."
Former Education Secretary William Bennett states, in his Index of Cultural Indicators 2001, "A child conceived in the United States today ... has a 25 percent chance of not being brought to term, because of abortion. ... If that child is born, there's a 33 percent chance he will be born out of wedlock. And for children who are not born out of wedlock, there's a 50 percent chance that their parents will divorce before they're 16."
"The scale of marital breakdown in the West since 1960 has no historical precedent," he said. "The breakup of the American family is the most profound ... social trend of our time."
Two other causes were noted by Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput in his 1999 Senate testimony on Columbine: "First ... we've lost our common sense. ...The reasonable person understands that what we eat, drink and breathe will make us healthy or sick. In like manner, what we hear and ... see lifts us up — or drags us down. ... Common sense tells us that the violence of our music, our video games, our films and our television has to go somewhere, and it goes straight into the hearts of our children to bear fruit in ways we can't imagine — until something like [Columbine] happens.
"Second, ... the real problem is ... in us, and it won't be fixed by v-chips. ... We've created a culture that markets violence in dozens of ... ways, seven days a week. When we build our advertising campaigns on ... selfishness and greed, and when money becomes the universal measure of value, how can we be surprised when our sense of community erodes? ... When we answer murder with more violence in the death penalty, we put the state's seal of approval on revenge. When the most dangerous place in the country is a mother's womb and the unborn child can have his or her head crushed in an abortion, even in the process of being born, the ... message is that life ... may not be worth much at all. ... Certain kinds of killing we enshrine as rights and protect by law. When we live this kind of contradiction, why are we surprised at the results? I don't think [the Columbine murders] will be the last. ... Nothing makes us immune from that violence except a relentless commitment to respect the sanctity of each human life, from womb to natural death."
Maybe it's time to pay attention. Mother Teresa, as usual, gave us the bottom line: "If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"
Professor Rice is on the Law School faculty. His column appears every other Tuesday.
The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
All Viewpoint Stories for Tuesday, March 20, 2001
