LOS ANGELES.–Sending a loud shot across the bow, Pontiac, Michigan Judge Cheryl Matthews changed the liability of gun ownership forever, unless the convictions and sentences of James and Jennifer Crumbley ware reversed on appeal. Today, Judge Matthews sentenced both parents to 10-15 years in prison for the Nov. 10, 2021 mass shooting of their 15-year-old son Ethan Crumbley at Oxford High School. Unlike other cases of mass shooting by teenagers, the James and Ethan Crumbley were the first parents to be charged, convicted and now sentenced of involunary manslaughter in four deaths and seven other injuries from the son Ethan who was sentenced Dec. 8, 2023 to life in prison without the possibility of parole. No matter how heinous the crime, Ethan was only 15 when he committed the mass shooting, no doubt mentally disturbed when engaged in mass murder.
Justice doesn’t prevail when the criminal justice system bypasses certain standard checks-and-balances when prosecuting teenage mass shooters or other criminals. When it comes to excessive sentences, there’s no question about the Nov. 10, 2021 mass shooting at Oxford High School but it was committed by a crazed teenager, not fully responsible for his adult actions, no matter how much the criminal justice system throws the book at him. When it comes to his parents, there’s no question they’re responsible for some criminal liability but, more importantly, monetary damages. Whatever prosecutors argued, the parents still didn’t pull the trigger, regardless of what their son did at Oxford High School. If the High School counselor didn’t red flag Ethan as a danger to self-or-others, how can parents know what’s going on inside the minds of their teenagers?
No doubt that the Crumbleys should pay some kind of price to making firearms available for their disturbed teenager but the ultimate responsibility must stay, under the U.S. criminal justice system, with the one that pulls the trigger. Would the judge find parents equally liable had Ethan, who was 15, took a joy ride in the family car and killed some innocent bystanders? How much criminal liability do parents have for their children? When it comes to James and Jennifer Crumbly, prosecutors and Judge Matthews got it wrong trying them for involunatary manslaughter, a far too harsh charge from anyone deemed only negligent. Prosecutors made a big deal of James and Jennifer never telling Oxford High School officials that their son possessed a Sig Sauer 9mm semiautomatic pistol, given to their son as a gift. No doubt that fact inflamed the judge and jury leading to their convictions.
Prosecutors showed the simplicity to the jury of using a simple cable trigger lock, taking all of 10 seconds to render the weapon harmless. But parents’ negligence to implement a trigger lock on their son’s gun is only one aspect of the case. Prosecutors emphasized that both parents gave the weapons to their mentally disturbed son, making them an accomplice in the crime, much that same way another mass shooter 20-year-old Adam Lanza whose Dec. 14, 2012 rampage killed 27 at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Lanza’s mother, who gave him his semiautomatic weapon, was the first to die. When it comes to the Crumbley’s, there’s no precedent for charging parents of a teenage shooter with involuntary manslaughter, holding them accountable for their teenager’s mass shooting. No doubt the parents are responsible for something but not 10-15 years in jail.
Prosecutors told jurors all the ways responsible parents could have prevented the mass killing by simply not buying their disturbed teenager a gun. Or, at the very least, using simple trigger lock to make the gun harmless until it could be supervised as safe by the parents. Saying the Crumbley’s had a “chilling lack of remorse” for their son’s actions inflamed jurors to the point they were willing to give them a harsher penalty. Knowing the unprecedented nature of the criminal trial against the Crumbleys the prosecutors should have told the jury there are countless numbers of parents who have been in the same boat with their renegade teenagers engaged in mass shooting or vehicle accidents. Prosecutors said the parents should have known their son was more disturbed, not buying him a gun and giving him the means to engage in gun violence and mass murder.
Today’s sentencing shows the need to the U.S. Congress to establish clear guidelines when it comes to gun ownership, including criminal liability of parents with their children or teenagers who commit violent acts. Expecting parents to forecast violence in their teenagers is risky business since even mental health experts and school personnel have trouble forecasting gun violence. When it comes to sentencing guidelines for parents of teenage gun violence, the Congress must get more specific to give courts the right limits under which to prosecute parents of teenage shooters. Simply throwing the book at parents of teenage shooters doesn’t solve the problems of deterrence, necessary to reducing the frequency of mass shootings. No doubt that parents must pay some price, but sentencing the Crumbleys to 10-15 years is clearly overkill, doesn’t serve the cause of justice.
About the Author
John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.