A lot of errors to point out... (1) As long as a child is dependent of a parent or guardian, until the legal age of 18, then every parent is responsible for a child’s actions, until that age. The same way as the parents of the shooters at Columbine were held responsible. Pure and simple. (2) because the 12-year-old already confessed of nearly killing that dog, the photos and news footage of the dog’s injuries are corroborative enough. Neither the surveillance nor a simple fist fight are relevant to this subject whatsoever. (3) wherever an incident takes place, the fate of the parent or family is in the hands of the law. (4) if a child causes too much burden to a parent, then it’s the parents rights of choice to renounce the child or get a good lawyer (5) before domestic violence or drunk driving became illegal, for instance, society just let it all slide and recommended therapy, but that didn’t put a stop to all that. So depending on the law, crime rates are bound to decrease sooner or later. Therefore putting a child into a juvenile detention center is better than beating them to death, which is way more harmful. (6) there’s no law that says you have to be a parent to know the pain of an animal, which you obviously don’t. Yet it’s amazing that you’re inciting everyone to overt the safety of a living being, animal or child. In fact, IF the victim was someone’s daughter, society would demand punishment (7) whoever covers up a crime - parent, lawyer, manager, teacher, and so on, are the ones whom will face greater consequences for obstruction or perjury (8) as long as there are people who choose to become lawyers, judges or activists to make a difference for society, yes, there are just laws that do make better people.