Should parents be liable for the torts of their children even if the parents have not been careless or inattentive in their supervision of the child?

Under the traditional common law rule, we learned that parents are not liable for the intentional torts of their minor children. Because children usually do not have assets or insurance that would satisfy any harms they may be liable for, the injured party would often not have any recovery available to them. Of course, there could be an action against a parent if it could be proven that a parent was careless in supervising a child, but even careful supervision doesn't mean that a child will not cause harm to others. Modernly, most states have imposed strict liability on parents for the intentional torts of their children up to a certain maximum amount (in California, the maximum a parent can be liable for in such cases is about $25,000).

Do you think parents should be liable for the intentional torts of their children? Why or why not?