Are parents criminally responsible for the actions of their child? In the Oxford shooting case, prosecutors say yes
Parents of school shooting suspect Ethan Crumbley appear in court
One of the key questions for jurors, assuming no plea deal is reached, is whether the parents knew that a school shooting would occur or had reckless disregard of this fact. To prove the parents’
gross negligence, the prosecution will most likely rely on a series of alleged facts.
‘Egregious’ behavior
Among the most central facts is that the
Crumbleys bought their son the handgun as a Christmas present and later took him to target practice.
Neither parent informed the school that they had bought the gun and that their son had access to it.
After being told that her son was searching for ammo on his phone at school, Jennifer
Crumbley told her son via text message not to get caught: “LOL I’m not mad. You have to learn not to get caught.”
Neither of the parents opted to remove their son from school after being told that a teacher found a
disturbing drawing of a bloody figure in his desk.
Finally, the gun was unsecured.
Though the prosecution’s case appears compelling, the Crumbleys’ defense team has some very strong counterarguments.
For starters, the weapon was legal to own, and Michigan has no law requiring the gun to be properly stored away from juveniles. As for informing the school about their son’s access to weapons, the defense will likely argue that the Crumbleys had no duty to do so, nor were they required to pull their son from school.
Finally, with regards to the text, Jennifer Crumbley will most likely claim that her text about the ammo was sent jokingly and she thought her son planned to shoot at targets, not other children.
A first grader’s death
In the rare instances that
parents of school shooters are prosecuted, they are normally charged with crimes such as child abuse, child neglect and failure to properly secure a firearm. The charge lodged against the Crumbleys,
involuntary manslaughter, also known as gross negligent homicide, is even more uncommon.
But it’s not without precedent.
In 2000,
Jamelle James, a Michigan resident, pleaded no contest to involuntary manslaughter for leaving his handgun in a shoebox in his bedroom. At the time, James lived in an apartment prosecutors described as a “flophouse” that was shared with a number of people, including two young children.
A 6-year-old boy – James’ nephew – was temporarily living in the apartment and discovered the gun, brought it to school and fatally shot his first grade classmate Kayla Rolland. James spent more than two years in prison before he was released on probation.
Prosecutors claimed that James’ conduct was “grossly negligent” and “so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted.” Arguably, leaving an unsecured gun around very young children demonstrated James’ gross negligence.
