# Vandals damage home while family away -- they're "children" and won't be charged **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [April 14, 2021, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vandals-damage-home-while-family-away-theyre-children-and-wont-be-charged/940007 "2021-04-14T22:34:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2021, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vandals-damage-home-while-family-away-theyre-children-and-wont-be-charged/940007/101 "2021-04-22T05:31:54Z")
> [@eschrodinger](#): > > Less mature kids don’t even understand what “permanent” means, let alone think ahead to understand that breaking something means the owner of that thing is deprived of it permanently. A whole lot of grown-ups don’t understand those concepts either. And I mean that in a totally serious, non-snarky way. ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2021, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vandals-damage-home-while-family-away-theyre-children-and-wont-be-charged/940007/102 "2021-04-22T05:32:25Z")
True. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2021, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vandals-damage-home-while-family-away-theyre-children-and-wont-be-charged/940007/103 "2021-04-22T12:08:39Z")
> [@erysichthon](#): > > The _Daily Mail_ picked up the story; they interviewed the couple and ran a bunch of additional pictures of the wreckage. The Kennys are suing the parents of the vandals, but (as noted earlier in this thread) their liability is limited to $5,000. The article included this: > ‘…The parents [of the vandals] are being pretty cooperative, and they are apologetic.’ If a civil suit is required in order to extract $5,000 from the parents, then I would not say they are being “cooperative.” The parents should offer to pay for all of the damages their kids caused, not just the $5,000 for which they are legally liable. Frankly, they seem pretty damn uncooperative to me. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2021, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vandals-damage-home-while-family-away-theyre-children-and-wont-be-charged/940007/104 "2021-04-22T15:38:39Z")
It’s possible that the parents have an insurance policy that might cover some of the costs and the only way to get the insurance company to pay is to sue. I think some home policies are like that: if someone gets hurt in your home the insurance company only pays when losing a suit. I don’t know if any policy would cover something like this (children vandalizing another home) but they may be trying it. In a way they’re suing the insurance company, not the parents. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2021, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vandals-damage-home-while-family-away-theyre-children-and-wont-be-charged/940007/105 "2021-04-22T16:28:42Z")
I hope that’s the case, because I’m gobsmacked that they apparently didn’t have contents insurance (despite owning some reasonably valuable stuff and being able to afford a Disney World vacation). And, yes, homeowners insurance usually includes coverage against vandalism. See my post #44 in this thread for a cite. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2021, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vandals-damage-home-while-family-away-theyre-children-and-wont-be-charged/940007/106 "2021-04-24T07:44:45Z")
> [@nelliebly](#): > > Status offenses are conduct charges that would not be a crime if committed by an adult, such as truancy or alcohol consumption. Around here juveniles are routinely charged with delinquency for alcohol consumption. I’ve argued until I am blue in the face with prosecutors and judges against that for the same reason you stated. But the prosecutors and judges tell me that some adults, those ages 18 to 20, can be charged with underaged drinking. I point out that why do we only include adults ages 18 to 20 and not those adults aged 21 to 115? The cases are resolved reasonably so there has never been a reason for an appeal. ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2021, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vandals-damage-home-while-family-away-theyre-children-and-wont-be-charged/940007/107 "2021-04-24T19:08:16Z")
That’s an interesting argument the prosecutors and judges make. It seems like shifting the goalposts. For purposes of consuming alcohol, adulthood–that is, the age at one can presumably make responsible decisions about drinking–is 21. It seems to me that by definition, anyone under 21 is not an adult when it comes to matters of alcohol consumption. And in fact, in Wyoming and Montana (the states where I was most familiar with the laws, as I taught HS and college there), anyone under age 21 who was caught consuming alcohol was charged with Minor in Possession, whether they were over 18 or not. What is the point in charging an 18-year-old who’s been drinking with a delinquent crime instead of a status crime? Is there data that shows that charging underage drinkers 18-20 works to discourage drinking by that age group? Underage drinking is a terrible and serious issue. I’ve gone to the funerals of kids who drove after drinking, and I’m all for measures that keep kids from drinking. I just don’t understand the logic of charging a nineteen-year-old with a delinquent crime instead of a status crime. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2021, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vandals-damage-home-while-family-away-theyre-children-and-wont-be-charged/940007/108 "2021-04-24T21:39:13Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > It’s possible that the parents have an insurance policy that might cover some of the costs and the only way to get the insurance company to pay is to sue. I think some home policies are like that: if someone gets hurt in your home the insurance company only pays when losing a suit. > > I don’t know if any policy would cover something like this (children vandalizing another home) but they may be trying it. In a way they’re suing the insurance company, not the parents. AIUI, under the law, suing the parents of the vandals could only result in a judgment of $5000 at the most, which means that’s the most the insurance company would be willing to pay out. Anyone want to wager on whether the vandals’ parents voluntarily cough up another $35,000 from their own pockets? ---
**Author:** ![nearwildheaven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90db22/32.png) [@nearwildheaven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nearwildheaven)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2021, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vandals-damage-home-while-family-away-theyre-children-and-wont-be-charged/940007/109 "2021-04-24T22:43:23Z")
I was in high school when the drinking age in Iowa was raised from 18 to 19, and there was an immediate and precipitous drop in fights, kids coming to class drunk, etc. I don’t have a problem with it being 19. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2021, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vandals-damage-home-while-family-away-theyre-children-and-wont-be-charged/940007/110 "2021-04-24T22:49:33Z")
Isn’t the drinking age in Iowa 21? ---
**Author:** ![nearwildheaven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90db22/32.png) [@nearwildheaven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nearwildheaven)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2021, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vandals-damage-home-while-family-away-theyre-children-and-wont-be-charged/940007/111 "2021-04-24T22:50:32Z")
It is now, although IIRC they can drink beer at 19. A lot of bars use wristbands to identify semi-underage patrons. The first change was in the late 1970s, and the second one in the early 1980s. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vandals-damage-home-while-family-away-theyre-children-and-wont-be-charged/940007.md?page=5)