Should parents be held responsible for their children's crimes?
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
