To the Editor,
Re: Parents shouldn’t be sued for kids’ actions, Letters, March 1.
When I first read this letter, I thought it was April 1.
If the writer knew anything about the court system, he would know that sometimes more than one party needs to be named, because if a judgment is awarded against someone with no assets and/or no income, the victim is twice victimized.
If this ‘graffiti offender’ had taken responsibility and paid for his crimes, there would be no need to sue him. If his parents had taken responsibility for the person they created, he might not have damaged the property of others.
And as for ‘profit of those with a vested interest’, please explain how it is profitable to have to go through all this trouble, only to try and recover money to repair your damaged property?
How is it sensitive if the victims are not allowed to sue to compensate for the damages to their property?
Explain again how it is about profit and greed when victims of crime only want to be compensated for their losses?
Graffiti is a problem in Nanaimo and it is because people make excuses for the vandal and do not support the victim.
It will only stop when we start to hit the vandals and those responsible for them where it hurts most – in the wallet.
P. Pelletier
Nanaimo
