• OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    But age up everyone 20 years in the story so everyone is more obviously an adult in your head. 60-something year old parents neglecting their adult son’s mental health is not their fault anymore. If he’s an adult, it’s his responsibility. Even if the dad bought the son a gun, if the son is an adult, then the son was responsible for locking it up and keeping it safe.

    It makes sense to me to charge a parent for getting their kid access to something dangerous and ignoring safety requirements. Like installing a pool without a fence that a kid drowns in, that’s clearly morally the parent’s fault. But the kid has to be a kid. Buying your adult child a pool which they later drown in is not the parent’s fault. Culpability shifts when the child becomes an adult.

    • GeneralVincent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The son is 15. That’s still very much the parents responsibility. That’s a child who lives with his parents, who can’t buy his own gun, who doesn’t have the same mental capacity as the 35 year old in your hypothetical.

          • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            I’m saying that the case declaring him an adult was wrong to do so, if the facts of the case show that he was a child whose parents are both liable for his actions.

            Sure they are separate cases so the legal system can treat him as an adult and a child at the same time. But that’s bad. The legal system shouldn’t do that.