Some people may think that parents should be held completely accountable for their children’s actions, and therefore penalized for them as well. And while in some cases this may and should apply, I don’t believe the parents should be penalized by society if, lets say, their child turns out to be the next Ed Gein.
You might be asking yourself, who is Ed Gein, for those of you who are not familiar with this name, he is the inspiration behind: Texas Chainsaw Massacre’s Leatherface, Silence of the Lamb’s Buffalo Bill, and Psycho’s Norman Bates. By these references I hope it becomes more clear what kind of person I’m referring to. Ed Gein, became infamous after being arrested on November 16, 1957, after a police investigation over the disappearance of Bernice Worden, lead them to his farm. Upon their thorough search they found Worden hanging upside down from ropes, like a dressed out deer, decapitated.
Ed Gein was the youngest of two sons, who were born to George and Augusta Gein. Both children were exposed to the same abuse from both mother and father, and to the same nurturing environment. So why did one become a murder while the other did not? It’s hard to say why, especially when there are so many factors involved. One reason might be, as X puts it “Sadly we are not all born equal. Not even close.” (The New Zealand Herald, 1) Although I agree with the author of the Can Kids Be Born Bad? essay up to his statement that we are not all born equal, and that some kids are born with the predisposition to become psychopaths, I cannot accept his overall conclusion that it’s ultimately up to the parents to turn a “bad seed” into a decent citizen. I believe there are many other factors that disrupt the outcome of a person’s personality.
I can see why the author believes that if we teach the children wrong from right at an early age, and teach them that every one of their actions has a consequence, that then the child in question will turn out right. But if the child is born a psychopath and has no conscious of his/her own, then no matter how much you teach them, they won’t have it in them to know when something they have done is wrong, if by definition wrong is relevant. What is wrong for one person can be extremely well for another one. I don’t think parents should be fully penalized for the child’s outcome. There’s environments they have no control of. They can only teach them morals and consequences in their homes, but as soon as the child steps out into the real world, where the environment is not controlled by their parents, they will be exposed to numerous more lessons. Some of those lessons will consist with the norm, what his/her parents have taught them, but some will be morbid. To mention a few, the child can be expose via school, to lie, to cheat, to fight, to bully at an early age, and the no matter how much the parents may try, if the child was already born with the disadvantage, then the child will be an easier target. And may have more of a possibility to become the next Ed Gein.
Like I mention above, I am of two minds, on one hand I understand and agree with X, when he states that if we instill morals, empathy, and enforce consequences to their actions, that the child in question will have a better opportunity to become a good law abiding citizen. However, I do not agree that these simple methods will ensure good results. Since, in the way I see it, there is more to a child’s development than what they learn at home. Two children with the same environment, same morals, same repercussions turn out completely different. Genetically speaking, one was born with the incapacity to feel empathy or feel remorse. Even if the parents of these two children did their best to given them both a fair chance in succeeding in life, it’ll be so much harder for the child in the disadvantage of not always knowing what’s right from wrong, on his own. So why should the parents be blamed for this child’s failure? They did not purposely decided to give him/her the genetics they did.
I agree with X when he wrote “Are psychopaths only made through abuse or neglect which somehow damaged them? Many people believe that if only someone had shown them more love, then the Ed Gein’s of this world may not have ended up monsters. The evidence is against that. In a particularly chilling study of 3687 twins, all aged seven years’; researchers found that psychopathic traits were under extremely strong genetic influence. What’s more, here was ‘no shared environmental influence’. There is very strong evidence that some children are literally born without the capacity to experience empathy or remorse. They are born without a conscience and this has nothing to do with how they were raised.” (The New Zealand Herald). I’d like to define psychopath: “Medical Dictionary Main Entry: psy·cho·path Pronunciation: 'sI-k&-"path Function: noun : a mentally ill or unstable individual; especially : one having an antisocial personality” (Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary). Being a psychopath is being mentally ill. A person with such an illness does not always act negatively, many people have this illness and turn out well, it’s those select few, that with a series of factors turn out to be remorseless criminals. Such a criminal is the protagonist of Dexter. A television series about a serial killer with morals. That’s ironic in itself. In the editorial “Psychopath or perfect parent? It’s a close call” Chance states the following question: “Dexter does what almost no fertile adult on the planet does: he asks whether he should be allowed to have a child.” (Chance, 1). The question is an awkward one, one that most people would find offensive if asked to them. And with reason. Who wants to be questioned about their ability to bore a “good” baby. It’s simply of bad taste. Same thing with placing blame where it isn’t merited, it is simply tasteless and unethical.
I guess, people should be asked to take an exam before being allowed to breed. You never know if your genetics will bore the next infamous serial killer or the next closet pedophile. In any case, parents should be held responsible for what their kids turn out to be, right? They should be hung right along side. I mean, that’s why the most conservative Christians do not make “bad babies”. If this were true, than we’d be in an utopia. So why isn’t this the case? I say all this in sarcasm, of course. I just want it to be obvious how ridiculous it is to blame a parent for the actions of their children. Wouldn’t teachers begin to be blamed by parents too? Since children do spend the majority of their day in school. It isn’t solely the parents responsibility, it’s society’s in general. As a society we are as responsible as the parents since we do demonstrate a lot of violence and unethical behavior. So stop being hypocritical, unless you become Mother Theresa the second, do no judge. Sociologist agree when they say the following “While it is difficult to determine which children who have experienced televised violence are at greatest risk, there appears to be a strong correlation between media violence and aggressive behavior within vulnerable "at risk" segments of youth.” (Berecine, 1) We thrive on violence, so of course this will not go off air. So nor will easily manipulated children, they do as they see. Especially at a young age.
Yes you can teach your kid not to be horrible, but it’s his/her decision ultimately.

_________________
That is not dead which can eternal lie // And with strange aeons even death may die.