An ACM colleague, John Hanscombe, pondered this in a piece he wrote this week. I thought I'd share it with you.

---

The age of criminal responsibility has been a hot topic for years.

On one hand, people fed up with vandalism, break-ins, car theft and antisocial behaviour clamour for tougher penalties regardless of age. They want magistrates to throw the book at offenders.

On the other, youth advocates say locking up kids is not the answer and is downright inhumane, often setting them up for a life of crime. They want for the age of criminal responsibility to be lifted.

Often lost in the noise are the pleas for parents to take some responsibility for the poor behaviour of their offspring. That idea has been given weight by the conviction of a mother in the US, found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for not preventing her son from committing a mass shooting at a school in which he killed four classmates.

Jennifer Crumbley is the first American parent punished over a mass shooting committed by their child. The prosecution accused the Crumbleys of buying their then 15-year-old son a pistol, which had been not been secured, and of failing to get him help for his worsening mental health.

The Crumbleys had refused to take their son home after the school had found a disturbing picture he'd drawn forewarning of the attack. But the school failed to check his backpack, in which he'd hidden the pistol. He opened fire on the same day.

Her husband faces the same charges at a separate trial.

Mercifully, Australia has been spared school shootings, thanks to relatively tough gun laws introduced after the Port Arthur massacre.

Youth knife crime, however, is a growing problem, front of mind after the recent stabbing murder of a Queensland grandmother. In that state, youth crime and juvenile justice will be key issues when the state goes to the polls in October.

In Victoria, legislation has been introduced to prohibit the purchase of machetes by children under 18 years of age.

Should parents take some of the responsibility if young Jayden falls in with a bad crowd and steals cars for TikTok notoriety? Should they be held liable for failing to exercise their duty of care to their child and to the wider community? The Crumbley prosecution ought to open up those questions for discussion.

During my childhood, rebellious ratbaggery was nipped in the bud by my angry parents. I'll never forget their fury when I was caught shoplifting after the Sunnyboys, Choo Choo Bars and Redskins tumbled out from under my shirt in front of the shopkeeper. I never committed that offence again.

But there were kids in the neighbourhood whose parents didn't care about - and sometimes applauded - their children's misbehaviour. Or they simply couldn't believe their precious son or daughter would ever do bad things. I was envious at the time but grateful for my oldies' strictness ever since.

Obviously, the state can't lock up every parent whose brats cause mayhem. Nor can it take into care or custody every child who offends. But if you subscribe to the principle that it takes a village to raise a child, the whole community needs to step up.

Just like the shopkeeper who alerted my parents to the fact I'd stolen from him.

And just like the Michigan school which tried to alert the Crumbleys to the fact their child was signalling a murderous act in the making.