Someone is responsible.

According to the "No Win - No Fee" lawyers, whatever happens, someone must be responsible; which, I suppose is generally true if you discount so-called "Acts of God" such a lightening strikes and thunderbolts.
Why then, is no-one apparently responsible when, as reported in the Daily Mail today, a child of three is caught vandalising a number of cars? Indeed why is no-one responsible for some 3000 recorded crimes by children under the age of ten and thus below the age of criminal responsibility?
Surely if the child is too young to assume responsibility for his/her actions, then one must assume that the child should be in the care of an adult and in this case surely it is the adult who should be held responsible. Whilst it might be more difficult to maintain a constant watch over, say, eight or nine year olds, surely a three year old should not be out in the street without an adult.
Why were the child's parents not prosecuted for neglect or their failure to safeguard the child?

The actual number of crimes committed by the under 10's is unknown, but it is believed to be many times the actual recorded figure as some police forces don't record them.
Surely it is time for the law to be changed so that "Someone is responsible" and by default this somebody should be the child's parents or legal guardian. By their act of permitting a child to commit a crime, they should be held responsible for the crime and charged as if they had committed it, and, if guilty, suffer appropriate penalties.