 <ICLE-IT-TOR-0005.1> 
Nowadays, a large number of youngs who are less than 18 are responsible of man[MO41]y illegal acts (such as stealing and robbing) which have a relevant cost for the state, but which are not payed. Is forcing parents to pay for their children's offences the way to restore discipline and to reduce juvenile crime? It might be said that if a parent would be obliged to pay for his sons' errors the state would have a fortune. But if this kind of punishment would certainly permit to the state to save money, we should ask ourselves how much and in what way it could be useful to restore discipline, that is to say to eliminate the problem in depth .
An article published in the Sunday Times on the 18th August 1996 speaks about a proposal made up by the Audit Commission about the introduction of a fare that the parents should pay to the victims of their children's crimes. According to the Audit Commission, this is considered a necessary step to be done to receive a contribution to the costs that the state is obliged to afford. But why a person has to pay for the faults that someone else has committed? I do not feel this idea would solve the question of juvenile crime or at least such a decision does not certainly allow to eliminate the problem from the causes. I agree with the Audit Commission when itself admits that the best solution would be the presence of better parents. Only a good education infact would permit to a child, already in his first years, to grow up feeling inside certain values, the parents should be the first persons to inculcate in their sons a sense of honesty and a respect for the law .
Another reason why I do not agree with the proposal made up by the Audit Commission is that I feel it should be the last thing to do to reduce the problem of children's criminality. If a young boy who steals has a parent who pays for him, this certainly would not prevent him from stealing again if he wants! So I do not only feel that this would not be the best way to restore discipline, but also it would not be a way at all. It seems to hear about the * guidrigildo *, a method which was used more than twenty centuries ago by the germanic populations. This permitted to a person to decide the most suitable sum of money to be repaid for an offence or the killing of a relative. Certainly in those ages such a method was not tried to solve the problem of criminality or to reduce expenses, but more simply for a question of honour. At least their reason was more comprehensible! The idea proposed by the Audit Commission looks like a form of * guidrigildo * asked by the state, but completely empty in its motivation. They are trying to say that the method they prepare can be useful for the restauration of discipline, but they are saying this only to add something * moral * to the fact that it is only a question of money!
Thus, the decision to force parents to pay for their sons' errors may be useful for the state about earning money, but not about trying to reduce the causes of the problem. Having someone else who pays for a child's offence is not useful to make him understand his faults and to persuade him to a better behaviour. Instead of this, it would certainly be more appropriate to find a kind of punishment adapt to young offenders, something to make them pay directly. In any case, the first and best way to prevent this troubles comes from a good education .
