Are Parents to Blame for the Crimes of Their Kids?

scales of justice

Source: Brian A. Jackson / Shutterstock

Should parents be held legally responsible for the criminality of their children? What is our legal and psychological responsibility to ascertain the red flags exhibited by our kids' behavior? If our child is struggling with their mental health, are we accountable if we don't proactively intervene? Further, should parents be held liable when their seemingly introverted child transforms into a school shooter with a gun they provided?

The answer to all of these questions is now a resounding yes.

In an unprecedented case last month, a Michigan court affirmatively held that parents can be held legally liable for the criminal actions of their children. Is this a dangerous precedent that oversimplifies a complex issue? Or might it serve as a deterrent to parents who would provide access to guns to their kids and ensure that families pay closer attention to mental health, particularly when a child is displaying red flags in their behavior?

Facts

On November 30, 2021, Jennifer and James Crumbley's son Ethan opened fire at Oxford High School in Michigan, killing four students and wounding seven others. On December 1, 2021, Ethan was charged as an adult with murder and terrorism. Three days later, Jennifer and James Crumbley were charged with involuntary manslaughter for the killings committed by their son. On December 9, 2023, a judge sentenced Ethan to life in prison. His parents were subsequently tried by juries separately, and both were found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 10 to 15 years, respectively. These are the first U.S. parents ever to be convicted of manslaughter for a mass shooting executed by their child.

Red Flags Ignored by Ethan's Parents

1. On March 9, 2021, Ethan sent his mother texts revealing his anxiety as he worried about an intruder in their home. "Can you get home now? There is someone in the house, I think."
2. In the same month, Ethan appeared to hallucinate, writing, "The house is haunted" and a "demon is throwing bowls."
3. On April 5, 2021, Ethan told his friend he was thinking of calling 911 on himself, but he was afraid his parents would be "really pissed."
4. Ethan kept a journal in which he wrote, "fighting with my dark side" and "my parents won't listen to me about help or a therapist."
5. In the late spring of 2021, Ethan was torturing and decapitating baby birds and kept one of the heads under a sheet.
6. November 26, 2021, James Crumbley bought his son a 9mm SIG Sauer from Acme Shooting Goods in Oxford, Michigan.
7. The following Monday, Ethan was caught by his teacher looking at bullets on his phone; his mom told him not to get caught next time.
8. On November 30, 2021, the morning of the shooting, both parents cut a school meeting short regarding a disturbing drawing a teacher had discovered Ethan making with the words "help me" and "blood everywhere" written on it and depictions of a masked man with a gun. The school had asked the Crumbleys to take their son home, but they ignored this request. The shooting took place shortly after.

The Psychological and Legal Ramifications of a Precedent

While the Michigan prosecutors knew that winning their cases against the Crumbleys meant that a controversial and potentially overreaching precedent would be set, they maintained that the red flags of psychological distress displayed by Ethan, which his parents ignored, compounded with their gross negligence of providing him with a gun called for a change in accountability. Judge Cheryl Matthews stated that the convictions reached by jurors in this case were "not about poor parenting" but about how the parents repeatedly ignored warning signs that a "reasonable person" would have recognized. The reasonable-person analysis is used in law to assess liability. Throughout the months leading up to his killing spree, Ethan begged his parents for help, and they repeatedly ignored his desperation. Moreover, they chose to buy him a gun despite all the psychological red flags he displayed in his behavior. A reasonable person—or parent, in this case—would have attempted to get their son therapeutic support, particularly in light of him hearing voices and seeing demons. Additionally, providing a gun to a child demonstrating apparent mental health issues is not only "unreasonable" but represents gross negligence.

Many legal scholars are not convinced that finding parents guilty of involuntary manslaughter for the murders committed by their kids will have any deterrent effect on school shootings. Further, blaming parents for such acts of violence commenced by their children could reduce a complex problem into a simplistic narrative. Bushman and Newman suggest that school shootings are incredibly complex and there can be no single cause for such a catastrophic event. In longitudinal studies, they reveal that youth violence is typically associated with family dynamics, neurobiological factors, academic achievement, personality traits, exposure to media violence, alcohol and drug abuse, social rejection, mental health, and access to guns. For Bushman and Newman, assessing liability solely based on parenting and gun access ignores the many other factors that also lead school shooters to kill.

Critics of this case agree, fearing that this precedent will allow prosecutors to use their discretion and attempt to convict parents who, unlike the Crumbleys, may meet the reasonable standard of care in attuning to their child's psychological needs and restricting gun access. This precedent could open up the floodgates for parents becoming the target of senseless blame for a societal problem that demands greater attention. Victims' families and affected communities want to hold someone accountable for the murders of innocent students. Prosecutors wish to do the same. We all do. The Crumbleys gave those grieving a place to inflict accountability. Unfortunately, deterring school massacres will likely take more research and resources than simply deeming it always to be a parent's fault. The dangers of overreaching precedent cannot be underestimated.