XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.society.liberalism, sac.politics
XPost: talk.politics.guns

What’s happening
The first parents in the U.S. to be convicted in a mass shooting caused by their child were each sentenced to at least 10 years in prison this week.
In separate trials, Jennifer and James Crumbley were convicted of
involuntary manslaughter for failing to prevent their teenage son Ethan
from killing four students at a Michigan high school in 2021.

The prosecution accused the Crumbleys of not securing a newly purchased
gun in their home and failing to act on warning signs that their son’s
mental health was deteriorating.

Meanwhile, the defense had argued at a pretrial hearing that holding the Crumbleys criminally responsible for their son’s mass shooting would kick
the door wide open to holding parents accountable for any number of
behaviors.

“If I have a child that goes and has sex with an underage girl, do I as
the parent then become liable for criminal sexual conduct because my child
used the cellphone I technically own, drove the car I technically own, and
I knew my son had an affinity to like girls?” defense attorney Shannon
Smith argued during a 2023 pretrial hearing.

Just before sentencing the Crumbleys on Tuesday, Oakland County Judge
Cheryl Matthews said, “These convictions are not about poor parenting.
These convictions confirm repeated acts — or lack of acts — that could
have halted an oncoming runaway train.”

The Crumbley convictions have once again ignited conversations surrounding
the criminal liability parents should assume when it comes to their
child’s actions and behavior. When it comes to parental responsibility
laws, they are typically broken down into two types: civil and criminal.

Parental civil liability laws have been on the books since at least 1846,
when Hawaii passed a law that essentially holds parents financially
responsible for the actions of their minor children. All states have a
version of this law that varies from intentional acts to accidents caused
by children.

When it comes to parental criminal liability, laws have been on the books
since 1899, when Colorado officials established a law that made
“contributing to the delinquency of a minor” a crime. The purpose of these
laws was to protect children from a parent or adult engaging them in
illegal activities, like delivering drugs. Most states designate this as a misdemeanor offense, typically punishable by a fine and/or jail time from
six months to a year.

Why there’s debate
Proponents of holding parents criminally liable for more serious offenses,
like a school shooting, believe that punishing parents could serve as a deterrent and a warning about safely securing guns.

Gun control advocates like Nick Suplina, senior vice president for law and policy at Everytown for Gun Safety, argue that convictions and punishments
— like in the case of the Crumbleys — have previously resulted in laws and parental awareness about matters of safety.

“There was a time where a parent might not really think about the
unsupervised party at their home that serves alcohol to minors until there
is a prosecution of parents for that party when a teenager is injured in a drunk driving accident, right?” Suplina told WBUR’s On Point. “That is now
a known thing among parents of adolescents, of the risk of having a party
like that.” Suplina noted that laws have been implemented requiring gates around pools to stop a wandering child from drowning.

However, on the other end of the parental criminal liability spectrum, opponents argue that low-income people and minorities could be disproportionately affected. Take, for example, California’s controversial truancy law championed by then state Attorney General Kamala Harris, which carries misdemeanor penalties for parents whose children regularly missed school.?

Cheree Peoples, a Black mother in California, was charged with a criminal misdemeanor under California’s truancy law in 2013 because her 11-year-old daughter, who has sickle cell anemia, missed too much school. Peoples was
in contact with school officials to work out a specific learning plan
designed for children with disabilities. Despite this, police officers
showed up at her house, handcuffed her and booked her, before she was
released later that day.

What’s next
The Crumbleys have spent over two years in jail while awaiting trial and
will get credit for time served. They will be eligible for parole after
they serve 10 years, but if parole is denied, they will serve a total of
15 years.

Ethan, who is now 17, is serving a life sentence for murder and other
crimes. A Michigan judge will later decide if all three Crumbleys will be
able to have contact with each other.

Perspectives
Parents like the Crumbleys shouldn’t be blamed for their son’s actions

“I think this is a bad and dangerous precedent to take the blame of a
teenager who knew what he was doing was wrong. He had a dark motivation
for wanting to be infamous. And now they're giving 10 to 15 years to the parents ... and I think it's wrong.” — Craig Scott, a Columbine High
School shooting survivor, to Fox News

Convicting the Crumbleys won’t solve school shootings, but it’s a start

“Holding parents criminally accountable for failing to secure guns in
their homes might encourage them to be more responsible.” — Joyce Vance,
New York Times

The Crumbleys’ convictions and sentencing are too much — and not enough

“They’re too much because the systems designed to support parents and
teens in crisis failed too, in part, because they are not adequately
funded. And they’re not enough because laying these failures at the feet
of the shooter and his parents and removing this family from society does little to incentivize school officials, lawmakers and taxpayers to correct
the systemic failures contributing to the behavior being punished.” — Mary Mueller, parent of a student who survived the Michigan school shooting,
and Sarah Rogerson, CNN

Stop pointing fingers and do the hard work

“Blaming individual parents for children’s crimes lets communities ignore
more difficult and divisive tasks: eliminating poverty, curbing child
abuse, providing mental health care, and limiting children’s access to
guns.” — Victoria Cain, Time

Black families will be the ones subject to this type of prosecution, not
white parents

“Research suggests that authorities tend to assume that Black children are older and more violent than they actually are and that their parents are
more negligent and irresponsible than white parents. And these stereotypes already fuel rampant discrimination in the criminal legal system. This combination of factors, along with the precedent set by the Crumbley
verdicts, makes it even more likely that prosecutors will seek to expand
their legal tools for incarcerating Black parents.” — Nia T. Evans, Mother Jones

More research needs to be done to see if parent punishment actually works

“I think [the Crumbleys’ case] still begs the question whether this will
give us the result we want. ... So I still would advocate for more
empirical research on the topic.” — Eve Brank, a psychology professor at
the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, to Al Jazeera

https://www.yahoo.com/news/should-parents-be-held-responsible-for-their- childrens-crimes-185927298.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)