I vote no. Because it is a stupid thing to waste time and public money on. It is one thing if there is a DEFINITE link, without conjecture, between the actions of someone and a video game that does not also come down to psychiatric problems. But why fill the courts with parents who made a mistake (le gasp! parents make mistakes!) as opposed to proper criminals? The legal system is already struggling without adding more pointless red tape and time-wasting charges.
My stance on gaming has not changed since the last time we talked about ratings and kids and the like. Parents should be in the know about modern cultures/subcultures that are likely to affect their children - it doesn't take much effort to read up on a game or find out about the content. I am firmly a believer in case-by-case - everyone here knows my daughter plays games above her age rating such as Fable, Skyrim and L4D. She also watches films above her age rating. But the onus is on me if it goes badly for her as a result - it's not the fault of the media she has used, it is mine alone. Having said that, she is not permitted (in our home, at least) to watch or play anything above a 12 rating unless myself and Steve have seen it first. We take the content advice seriously and are very careful to ensure that if Jess is going to play a game intended for 16+, then we play it through completely first. And I mean completely. She sometimes tries to convince me she can handle such and such but I'm not an idiot and so far she has never gotten her own way.
What she does outside the home, however, is out of my hands. I can't stop her from watching an 18 film or playing a game that is full of sex, violence and drug use. All I can do after the fact is talk it through with her if she has been adversely affected by the content - having certain images burned into your brain can be punishment enough, I reckon
Age-ratings are strictly adhered to when we have guests over, however. Just because I allow my child to play and see certain things does not mean I think all children should. With one of our children being disabled and very keen on visuals, we have to be extremely careful about what is being viewed by the family - Jake is affected greatly by what he sees and as he cannot process information the way we can, if he sees violence or gore or sexual activity...well, it's pretty much going to melt his brain, I reckon. So for his sake if nothing else, nothing is shown above a PG rating - and even then, we have to check it first to make sure it's not frightening for him.
I am intrigued, however, by what would be considered an appropriate punishment? I know that if someone in the UK sells an age-rated product to someone not of that age, they face a fine and MAYBE criminal charges if they persist - but what exactly would be considered fitting for parents? And how would anyone find out? Would other parents be snitching on them? Or a disgruntled kid who isn't getting their own way? I mean, after all, it sounds like one of those things that no one ever really grasses anyone up for anyway - is it even worth enforcing it in this way?