Parental Responsibility.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6482, 27 February 1889, Page 2

Parental Responsibility.

Thb .first thing, however, is to diagnose the case correctly. Dr Giles and ha brother . Magistrates at Au<^land were much divided as to the cause of juvenile crime. Carelessness of parents; the general, irreverence of the age » want of religions training in our Bchool»-*all had their pet supporters. The firet ie, without doubt, the most fruitful . cause. The punishment of the parent, therefore, 'when the crime of the son arises through the' carelessness of the father, is but. an got o simple justice. We thoroughly agree with Dr Giles and Mr Whitefoord as to the righteousness of their methods. If the parent ao far neglects his duties as to become in real truth?' acoessoiry Tbeif ore the fact " when his offspring commits a crime, heunuat J» jnado to shire toe iesponsi*

bility with the criminal. The principle' lb admitted in our law already ; the proposed application of the principle constitutes its novelty. Simple novelty, however, has never, as far as we know, barred the way to legislation in New Zealand. The only thing we doubt is the efficacy of Dr Giles' remedy, which is disfranohisement. If persons of the class likely to suffer the. penalty value their electoral privileges so highly, as to make the loss of them a real" deterrent for neglected duty, weehall feel surprised.. ....,„ , ; ;: