Attorney General Kim Wilson's announcement on Friday that Government is continuing to examine ways to hold parents liable for their children's misbehaviour shows one thing; that the idea has not been thrown out as unworkable from the start. In fleshing out the range of penalties possible, which range from requiring parents to appear in court when their children are charged with offences to imprisonment, she did show that legislation exists that ranges from the draconian to the mild and sensible.

That, at least, is good. Now it is to be hoped that there can be a full debate on these issues. For now Sen. Wilson is gathering criminal defence lawyers to debate changes, but this should be widened to the Police, social and probation workers, teachers and so forth. Lawyers, with all due respect, only deal with one part of the process. The fundamental questions with this idea are how far you can hold one individual, even a parent, responsible for the actions of another, and to what extent sanctions against another individual will deter bad behaviour by a minor.

There is precedent in Bermuda law for holding parents liable, notably in education, where parents can be held liable if their children are truant from school. This law has been rarely exercised, and when it was in one case, the same problem arose, with the parent claiming that she had to leave for work before her children were due to school and to the best of her knowledge, they had been at school. But in those cases, parents have signed what is in effect a specific contract that they have subsequently failed to uphold. Now the idea is that parents should be held responsible for other breaches of the law by their children, presumably on the basis that they have failed to carry through their civic responsibility to control their children. These could range from delinquency to capital crimes like murder.

The problem lies with how far you can hold a parent responsible and liable for a child's actions, especially when that minor could be as old as 17, and how they should then be punished. Requiring parents to pay restitution for damage caused when a child breaks a window is one thing, but holding them somehow responsible for assaulting another person or murder is quite another. But this, at the extreme end of the scale, is what is being suggested. Certainly, it has not been taken off the table. And one wonders where lessons about accountability and actions having consequences come in. In the example of the broken window, the parents should indeed be required to ensure that the child should pay for it, but passing the responsibility on to the parent is exactly the lesson the child should not be learning – that when things go wrong parents will be there to bail you out, or that it is somehow the parents' fault.

The other question is whether this kind of legislation has any deterrent effect. Does it force parents to be more responsible parents? Do children pause before breaking the law because they know their parents will be embroiled in it too? There does not seem to be much research available on these areas, although one study suggested that curfews are more effective in reducing youth crime. Parental responsibility laws, by contrast, seem to be rarely enforced, a classic case of governments passing laws and then declaring victory. The deepest concern is that "good parents" may well do all they can to raise their children well and to exercise reasonable control over them. But teenagers in particular will do things that are wrong, often knowingly, or will rebel. Is it really reasonable in those cases to hold the parents responsible? This is a complicated area of the law.

It is fraught with human rights and constitutional complexities, let alone problems concerning enforcement and bringing people to justice. Sen. Wilson and her colleagues would do well to tread carefully, examine what really works as opposed to what makes for a good soundbite and to find long term workable solutions to youth violence.