A baby might be kicked into life as the result of a careless moment behind the woodshed or a romantic frolic in a grand four-poster bed. Either way, nine months later, that squirming mass of new life will enter the world wanted or unwanted, prepared for or not.

Yet, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, there is no legal or moral mandate ensuring that this child is taught responsibility. No law requires parents to teach their offspring how to distinguish right from wrong, nor how the legal system operates or what happens if they choose to break societys rules.

So, if that child grows into a teenager and one day breaks the law, whose failure is it? Who should be held accountable the child, the parents, or both?

Let’s look back to the Brehon Law system

Few today realise that long before English common law was imposed, Ireland had a sophisticated and community-oriented legal system the Brehon Laws, which governed the land for more than a thousand years.

Unlike todays punitive legal model, the Brehon system was structured around responsibility, restitution, and family-based justice. It sought to restore social balance, not simply punish.

Instead of gaols or harsh sentences, offenders (and/or up to five generations of their family) were required to compensate the victim. If someone caused harm, even unintentionally, they were responsible for making amends no excuses. If a person committed a crime or failed to pay their debts, their entire extended family (up to five generations) could be held responsible for making restitution. And although honour is not now a recognisable part of the wests lexicon, maintaining your honourable position in society was paramount. All in all it was to a family’s advantage both financially and in terms of their position in society to educate all generations of children and to make sure they understood the rules and the ramifications to all members of the family if those rules were broken.

Parents, too, had clear legal obligations: They were required to provide for their childs training, moral guidance, and well-being. If a parent failed to raise their child properly, there could be legal consequences. And the law also protected the elderly, the sick, and the poor, ensuring that families supported their vulnerable members.

This system, rooted in honour and social responsibility, maintained stability for centuries only being fully dismantled after the English conquest of Ireland.

Applying ancient wisdom to modern problems

In todays Western legal system, we do not hold parents legally responsible for their childs actions except in extreme cases of neglect. Yet, if a parent fails to raise a child with basic morals, and that child turns to crime, should the burden of responsibility rest solely on the child and the state?

Perhaps there is wisdom in revisiting some aspects of Brehon-style family accountability. A system where parents, not just the state, bear legal and financial responsibility for their childs wrongdoing could serve as a powerful incentive to ensure that moral and legal education begins at home.

If a child vandalises property, steals, or assaults someone, should the parents be required to pay restitution alongside the child? Should they be obligated to attend parenting reform programs? Should repeat offences lead to fines, community service, or even legal repercussions for the parents themselves?

The Brehon Laws saw crime as a failure of the family unit, not just the individual. Could adopting this mindset lead to stronger families, fewer youth offenders, and a more responsible society?

Or have we, in modern times, lost our sense of collective responsibility choosing instead to let the state clean up the mess that bad parenting leaves behind?

Final thought: Who pays the price?

Right now, society pays through rising crime rates, overburdened justice systems, and broken families. But should parents, too, pay for failing to raise their children with responsibility and respect for the law?

Would a modern adaptation of Brehon Law one that balances justice with parental responsibility help curb youth crime?

Or would such a system be too harsh, too impractical, too much of a burden on parents in an already challenging world?

The question remains: Who should take responsibility for youth crime? The answer may determine the future of our society.