[cato2]

There are certain Dilemma's that a court faces when melding out justice.
Rights of the individual vs the common good
Equality vs discretion
To discover the truth or to resolve conflicts and finally,
Science vs the law.

The second and third one I think apply here. If the judge were to take the hard line and simply say, "he is guilty," then the kids is sentenced for the crime. If the judge were to apply the third, he would find that he could sentence the youth to the laws found in the book and be perfectly legal in doing so. But, where does that get anyone?

Discretion is what is needed here, a dose of reality and an admittance by the courts that in fact all parents cannot be judged equally by their son's and daughter's actions. There are too many circumstances that could expose a parent to a law that in inflexable, and the result is the car is taken. That approach is the black and white approach to the problem. Approached with discretion, the parents are notified of the severity of the crime, and they are responsible for the future behavior. First time out with seizure of assets seems too extreme a penalty.

That is where the resolution of the conflict becomes the sentence that takes into account that in fact many parents will be caught up in this, and the sentence is not only effecting the child but the adult as well.

We can always say just bar the child from driving the car. But in todays real world, for most that is not a practical solution. But if a child is caught, that would become the solution, and one that the parents will have to live with. But not the first time.

As for a parent not knowing their kid is dealing like this one. I find it very hard to believe that the parents were clueless. And would support a seizure of the car if it can be proved in a court that they in fact knew. You cannot turn a blind eye to the illegals actions of your kids because you want to be their 'friends,' or are afraid of them.