Topic: x
Speaker: x
Description: x

Topic: x
Speaker: x
Description: x

Topic: Accountability: The Dilemma of Parental Culpability
Speaker: Dr. Gary L. Hill, Lincoln University Vice President of Campus Culture & Chief of Police
Description: In recent years, the United States has experienced a significant shift toward holding parents legally accountable for their children’ s criminal behavior, particularly in cases involving youth violence and mass shootings.
(Obj: #2) High-profile prosecutions, such as the Crumbley case, have expanded the scope of parental criminal liability by emphasizing factors like failure to act on warning signs and allowing access to firearms. This trend reflects a broader movement toward increased accountability not only for parents, but also for school officials and institutions.
(Obj: #1) Parental responsibility laws fall into three main categories: civil liability (financial responsibility), status offenses (e.g., truancy), and criminal liability (rare but increasing in serious cases). While these laws aim to deter juvenile delinquency and promote responsible parenting, their effectiveness remains uncertain. Research shows no clear evidence that such laws reduce youth offending, and many parents are unaware of their legal responsibilities.
(Obj: #4) A key concern is that these laws often oversimplify the causes of juvenile delinquency. Youth behavior is influenced by multiple factors beyond parenting, including peer pressure, socioeconomic conditions, mental health, and environmental influences. Although parental monitoring and safe firearm storage can reduce risks, they are not solely determinative.
{Obj: #3) The expansion of parental liability raises significant ethical and legal concerns. Critics argue that these laws may violate due process, particularly when strict liability standards presume parental guilt without proof of intent or negligence. (Obj: #6) Additionally, enforcement disproportionately impacts marginalized communities, including Black, low-income, and single-parent households, exacerbating existing inequalities. Gender bias is also evident, with mothers often facing greater scrutiny and blame.
From the perspective of juveniles, most do not believe their parents are responsible for their actions, though many acknowledge that the possibility of parental punishment could deter their behavior. This highlights a tension between perceptions of accountability and the potential deterrent effect of these laws.
(Obj: #5) The broader juvenile justice system has also shifted from a rehabilitative model toward a more punitive approach, influenced in part by exaggerated fears of youth violence, such as the “super-predator” myth. Evidence suggests that harsher measures, including transferring juveniles to adult courts, may increase recidivism rather than reduce it.
Given these challenges, many experts advocate for alternative approaches that emphasize prevention and support rather than punishment. These include restorative justice programs, family-based interventions, mental health services, and expanded roles for juvenile or family courts that involve parents without criminalizing them.
Overall, while parental responsibility laws aim to enhance accountability and public safety, their long-term effectiveness is unclear, and they risk unintended consequences such as family instability and systemic inequality. Future policy efforts should focus on balanced, evidence-based strategies that address the root causes of youth offending while promoting fairness and rehabilitation.

Topic: x
Speakers: x
Description: x

MORNING WORKSHOPS

Topic: x
Speaker: x
Description: x

Topic:x
Speaker: x
Description: x

Topic: x
Speaker: x
Description: x

Topic: x
Speaker: x
Description: x

AFTERNOON WORKSHOPS

Topic: x
Speaker: x
Description: x

Topic: x
Speaker: x
Description: x

Topic: Certified Pending Trial…. From Juvenile Detention to Adult Jail and Beyond
Speakers: Chris Yeager (Missouri Department of Public Safety) and Amy Sax (Missouri Division of Youth Services)
Description: In December 2018, the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act was reauthorized. The JJDP Act, as amended, made significant changes to how juveniles are held pending trial in the adult criminal justice system. Physically transferring a juvenile to a jail or lockup for adults following certification is no longer automatic. Now, certified juveniles are to remain placed in secure juvenile facilities pending the outcome of their criminal trial. However, there is a judicial process for transferring a certified juvenile to an adult jail when it is in the “interest of justice.” In 2021, Missouri codified these protections in Section 211.072, RSMo This presentation will review the initial transfer process, the subsequent required hearings, and the documentation necessary to ensure the state’s compliance with Section 223(a)(11)(B) of the JJDP Act and Chapter 211.072 of the Missouri Revised Statutes.
In addition, this presentation will provide attendees with an overview of Dual Jurisdiction sentencing as authorized under RSMo 211.073, Missouri’s blended sentencing statute, and the Dual Jurisdiction (DJ) Program administered by the Division of Youth Services (DYS). The session will focus on the statutory framework and legislative intent of RSMo 211.073, which permits certified youth to receive a dual sentence to the Division of Youth Services and the Department of Corrections (DOC). Attendees will receive education on how the DYS’ Dual Jurisdiction Program functions within the statutory structure, including eligibility considerations and the assessment process. This session is designed to support a clear, consistent understanding of RSMo 211.073 and the role of the Division of Youth Services Dual Jurisdiction Program within Missouri’s blended sentencing framework.

Topic: x
Speaker: x
Description: x

Topic:x
Speaker: x
Description: x

Topic: x
Speaker: x
Description: x

Topic: x
Speaker: x
Description: x

Topic: x
Speakers: x
Description: x