Responsibility and Blame

     On November 30, 2021 a 15-year-old teenager, Ethan Crumbley, murdered 4 students at a high school in Oxford Township, Michigan using a 9mm semi-automatic handgun. His guilt was never really in question. He pled guilty to all 24 charges including murder and terrorism in October of 2022, and in December of 2023 he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 24 years. Don't ask me what the additional 24 years is for, because I don't know. 

    That said, what I think is more important is what happened next. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way, shape, or form, looking to dismiss or trivialize what young Mr. Crumbley did that day. His actions were heinous, reprehensible, and if you'll forgive the quaint expression...evil. He will spend the rest of his life in prison...as most believe he should. And people, especially the families of the victims, will spend a long time trying to answer that age-old question..."Why?" Unfortunately, I don't think they are ever going to get an answer.

    What interested me, however, were the subsequent charges brought against his parents; Jennifer and James Crumbley (and here I will focus on the mother who was tried and convicted first). Jennifer Crumbley was found guilty on four counts of involuntary manslaughter, each count punishable by up to 15 years in prison. That's 60 years, kids...and she didn't pull a trigger. So how did we get here? The gist of the prosecutor's case against both parents is that they acted negligently, especially by giving Ethan unsupervised access to the gun that was used to kill the four students. But the real question, at least for me, is how far the state can reach to hold parents accountable for the actions of their children and what kind of precedent that sets. 

    The prosecution had to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that she "willfully disregarded the results to others that might follow from an act or failure to act." In essence, the prosecutors needed to show that the parents should have recognized that Ethan was bent on mass murder and that she could have prevented that outcome through "ordinary care." As many other people have already commented...the evidence for that guilty verdict is dubious, at best. And I'll try to sum up a lot of things as best I can. 

    According to one interview after another, from Ethan's parents to his teachers, and to the school administrators, nobody, and I mean, nobody...saw this coming. Good student, good kid, a little flaky (who isn't at that age), no fights, and no trouble. Nothing. But, and there's always a but...it seems Ethan had been drawing dark pictures of guns, blood, dead people, etc. That caught the eye of a teacher who was told by Ethan that he was developing a website/video game. And since you can't swing a dead cat without seeing some teenager on a murderous video game...nobody seemed overly concerned. Even after school officials suggested that Ethan's parents take him home for the day to see a therapist, the school allowed him to stay in school when his parents could not get him immediately. Why? Because no one entertained the tiniest thought that the kid might do something. He also kept a journal that touched upon teen angst about parents not understanding him and that he needed unspecified help. Unfortunately, nobody saw these journal entries as Ethan, like most kids, kept them hidden. 

    Ethan's father had bought him the gun for Thanksgiving. The family had a history of going to the shooting range together. Now, I can see where some people might get crazy about that. But there are millions of families who hunt together and own guns. Was this irresponsible? Maybe...or even probably. But it's not illegal in Michigan. And it certainly doesn't mean that Jennifer Crumbley understood that her son was capable of the heinous crime he would commit four days after receiving said gun. And if school officials had checked Ethan's backpack when they were discussing his drawings, they'd have found the gun. But again, not one person seemed that concerned. 

    So we fast forward to court. The prosecutors painted Jennifer Crumbley as an inept parent more concerned about her extra-marital affair as well as her horses and horse riding. They also painted Ethan as emotionally disturbed, citing the drawings as well as other conversations between he and his mother. Was Jennifer Crumbley the epitome of motherhood? Not many people would nod in the affirmative. But it was far from clear in the testimony at trial that Ethan's actions were, in any way, predictable...let alone that she "willfully" disregarded his actions and could have prevented the shooting through "ordinary care." And as I wrote above, even when the school officials thought the parents should come and get Ethan, those same teachers and administrators listened to him and acquiesced when he asked to stay in school so that he wouldn't miss class. That was obviously the wrong decision, but not an unreasonable one.

    There is nothing you have read above that is against the law. Were the parents wrong in not storing the gun properly? Absolutely. But there is no law in Michigan for that lapse in judgement. Is there a law in Michigan, or anywhere else for that matter, for not being Ozzie and Harriet Nelson? There is not. If there were, there would be a boat-load of parents occupying our prisons today. The fact is, prosecutors are not allowed to make up law in court that is not already on the books. 

    Let me put it another way; raise you hands if, in your youth, you did something so frighteningly stupid, maybe even illegal, that caused some people to say something like, "Well, that kid certainly wasn't raised right?" You can rest assured, dear reader, that both of my hands are raised! You know what I mean? But here's a headline. Our parents aren't to blame for our lack of judgement, stupidity, etc. That's on us. Personal responsibility. Absent a medical/neurological condition, every one of us are responsible for our own actions. Does a stable home help? Does good parenting help? Does thinking before you act help? Absolutely. All of that helps, and more. But in the end, it's on us. Just like it was on Ethan Crumbley.

    The court that sentenced Ethan Crumbley to life in prison tried him as an adult. That's how he got the maximum sentence in the state of Michigan. However, he was a minor when he committed these executions. Intelligent people can argue about whether or not a minor should be tried as an adult, under any circumstances. We'll get back to that in a minute. But again, the criteria that the judge gave the jurors was, "were the shooter's actions reasonably foreseeable." It is "not enough that the defendant's acts made it possible for the crime to occur. You must find beyond reasonable doubt that the deaths were a natural or reasonable result of the defendant's acts." The jurors decided that this, in fact, was the case. 

    I've talked with numerous parents about this topic, knowing I was going to write about it. Overwhelmingly, they sided with The Crumbley's, in the sense that Ethan was old enough to be responsible for his actions; and the parents, while flawed, did not deserve the punishment of jail time. Of the few people who disagreed with that assessment, one friend was overwhelmingly adamant that the parents should do serious time. My friend holds to the parental theory (as many others do), that when you bring a child into this world you are totally responsible for everything that child does until he or she leaves the nest...if not forever. I'm sympathetic to that argument...up to a point. Parents need to make sure their kids go to school, are good citizens, etc. But young Mr. Crumbley was 15 when he murdered his four classmates. I have trouble remembering 15, let alone what my thought processes were with regard to weighty issues of the day. That said, I do remember knowing right from wrong, including the act of murder. And I was raised by parents who taught me that. As I stated earlier...it was not Mom and Duane's fault when I CHOSE to ignore their wisdom.

    The prosecutor stated numerous times that she was putting the parents on trial to send a message. It seems that maybe she knew (or being a lawyer, should have known) the parents were not guilty of any crime. Again, being an awful parent is not a crime. The court system is not the place to send moral messages sans evidence of law-breaking. The slippery slope that this conviction presents to future cases, and specifically, parents, is frightening. If a parent gives the keys to the car to a son or daughter, and that son or daughter happens to end up drinking and driving, and killing someone, is the parent responsible and should the parent or parents do serious time? Again, if that's the case we're not gonna have too many parents left to pick up the shattered lives left behind. 

    One last thing with regard to trying Ethan as an adult. Doesn't trying him as an adult presuppose independence of thought and decision-making? If so, why did the prosecutors indict the parents as if Ethan was a child? Ethan Crumbley was a child, or he wasn't. You can't have it both ways. Either he was responsible for his actions, or his parents were. It can't be both...or can it?

write to Peter: magtour@icloud.com