Officials in the case decided to press charges against Parkinson, and last week she was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and placed on Virginia’s child-abuse-and-neglect registry, where she will remain for seven years.
I am all in favor of delinquency, but I don’t understand what delinquent behavior she could possibly have contributed to in this case? Walking in public? Having an interest in waterfowl?
No five year old is mature enough to understand and recognize the dangers involved.
Drowning, sure. But also, I’d be willing to bet there’s at least one person there who would harm that kid. There’s also the potential for traffic and getting lost on the way home; if trying to eat something dangerous and all manner of other things.
The incidence of kidnapping was WAY higher in gen-x days with no cell phones to rat out the pervs. And even when it was way higher, most child abuse happened by someone well-known to the victim. Stranger-danger was unbelievably rare.
My entire school in the 4th grade (so 9yo) lived next to a busy highway used by full 80t logging trucks, dump trucks, semi-trucks with full loads, in an area where snow is common in winter. We’d trudge down the boulevard of the highway, alto sax or trombone cases in hand, lugging it all to school and back. The whole class would. All grades would, from 4-7, hair and clothes flapping in the wind as a semi would roar past.
Then from the 8th grade we’d attend the school in the next town over. We’d get ourselves to the bus stop and disappear for 8 hours, completely out of contact, the eldest child with a house key and no ID, no phone, no tracker watch, no geofencing.
You’re making a statistical claim and the statistics don’t support you. Although you personally are paranoid, in reality, children have gone around the neighborhood almost entirely safely for almost all of human history.
Of course there is some element of risk. That’s true for life, for everyone, forever. But until you have solid data that says the kids shouldn’t be able to go a very short distance to a place that they know how to get to safely, then you’re speculating about what could possibly go wrong. And that’s just a waste of time from a public policy perspective.
No five year old is mature enough to understand and recognize the dangers involved.
I think the mother is better qualified to make that call than you.
Children eventually become adults, and they don’t magically become autonomous on their 18th birthday. It’s something responsible parents teach, and it starts young.
There’s a long running Japanese show called “Old Enough” where kids younger than this go off and do errands.
There’s a long running Japanese show called “Old Enough” where kids younger than this go off and do errands.
You know there’s at least one adult watching that child as they go off and do errands, right? the child isn’t unsupervised.
Children eventually become adults, and they don’t magically become autonomous on their 18th birthday. It’s something responsible parents teach, and it starts young.
And before you’re like “But they were in a gated community!”… I’ve worked security for gated communicates. people still drive like shit, and people are still people, and I’ve never met a 5 yo that was old enough to know the difference between a sweet tart and rat poison tablet- at least not before chomping on it.
I feel like I am in a Monty Python sketch right now. She “contributed to delinquency” because he could have gotten in trouble that he didn’t get into if things had gone entirely differently?
I am all in favor of delinquency, but I don’t understand what delinquent behavior she could possibly have contributed to in this case? Walking in public? Having an interest in waterfowl?
She allowed a 5yo to go to a pond on his own.
No five year old is mature enough to understand and recognize the dangers involved.
Drowning, sure. But also, I’d be willing to bet there’s at least one person there who would harm that kid. There’s also the potential for traffic and getting lost on the way home; if trying to eat something dangerous and all manner of other things.
Damn, have you interacted with any 5 year olds? They’re smarter than you think.
The incidence of kidnapping was WAY higher in gen-x days with no cell phones to rat out the pervs. And even when it was way higher, most child abuse happened by someone well-known to the victim. Stranger-danger was unbelievably rare.
My entire school in the 4th grade (so 9yo) lived next to a busy highway used by full 80t logging trucks, dump trucks, semi-trucks with full loads, in an area where snow is common in winter. We’d trudge down the boulevard of the highway, alto sax or trombone cases in hand, lugging it all to school and back. The whole class would. All grades would, from 4-7, hair and clothes flapping in the wind as a semi would roar past.
Then from the 8th grade we’d attend the school in the next town over. We’d get ourselves to the bus stop and disappear for 8 hours, completely out of contact, the eldest child with a house key and no ID, no phone, no tracker watch, no geofencing.
Tell me again how modern life is dangerous.
You’re making a statistical claim and the statistics don’t support you. Although you personally are paranoid, in reality, children have gone around the neighborhood almost entirely safely for almost all of human history.
Of course there is some element of risk. That’s true for life, for everyone, forever. But until you have solid data that says the kids shouldn’t be able to go a very short distance to a place that they know how to get to safely, then you’re speculating about what could possibly go wrong. And that’s just a waste of time from a public policy perspective.
I think the mother is better qualified to make that call than you.
Children eventually become adults, and they don’t magically become autonomous on their 18th birthday. It’s something responsible parents teach, and it starts young.
There’s a long running Japanese show called “Old Enough” where kids younger than this go off and do errands.
You know there’s at least one adult watching that child as they go off and do errands, right? the child isn’t unsupervised.
And the key word here is “starts”. The leading causes of death of children between 1 and 19 are mostly things that that child could have encountered.
they include:
And before you’re like “But they were in a gated community!”… I’ve worked security for gated communicates. people still drive like shit, and people are still people, and I’ve never met a 5 yo that was old enough to know the difference between a sweet tart and rat poison tablet- at least not before chomping on it.
Are you trolling? You just perfectly summed up everything that’s wrong with the US
I feel like I am in a Monty Python sketch right now. She “contributed to delinquency” because he could have gotten in trouble that he didn’t get into if things had gone entirely differently?
Yes.
The government decided that children that young should be supervised. She failed to provide that supervision.
The child coming back safe that time doesn’t count- it’s a dangerous world.
But they didn’t charge her with endangering him, that’s a different thing.
Edit to add: And I suspect they didn’t because he was, self evidently, not in danger. So I remain confused about why this became an entire affair.
Because prosecutors are elected in the US, they do all kinds of stupid things.
And we all know that the government is always just and never gets it wrong.
did I say the government was right?
the good news here is that, as part of that government by means of voting, you can go and change yours.