Jennifer and James Crumbley are the first parents convicted in a U.S. mass school shooting.

NOTE: article updated.

A judge sentenced the parents of a Michigan school shooter to at least 10 years in prison Tuesday for failing to take steps that could have prevented a “runaway train” — the killing of four students in 2021.

Jennifer and James Crumbley are the first parents convicted in a U.S. mass school shooting. They were found guilty of involuntary manslaughter after prosecutors presented evidence of an unsecured gun at home and indifference toward the teen’s mental health.

Ethan Crumbley drew dark images of a gun, a bullet and a wounded man on a math assignment, accompanied by despondent phrases. Staff at Oxford High School did not demand that he go home but were surprised when the Crumbleys didn’t volunteer it during a brief meeting.

Later that day, on Nov. 30, 2021, the 15-year-old pulled a handgun from his backpack and began shooting. Ethan, now 17, is serving a life sentence for murder and other crimes.

  • Copernican@lemmy.world
    124·
    7 months ago

    Then how do you charge the kid as an adult? If you treat the kid as a child it makes sense to me to look at the parents for negligence. But if you think the kid is legally responsible to be tried as an adult, how do the prosecutors also go after the parents?

    • audalics@lemmy.world
      331·
      7 months ago

      Multiple adults are tried and convicted for different roles in the same crimes all the time.

      • Copernican@lemmy.world
        131·
        7 months ago

        Yeah, but it’s weird when you 2 adults are tried for basically parental negligence of a minor, but that minor was tried as an adult. So if the minor is being tried as an adult, how can the parents be tried for not taking care of their minor? If the kid was tried as a kid this would make more sense to me.

        • Liz@midwest.socialEnglish
          11·
          7 months ago

          They were charged with involuntary manslaughter. I would assume similar charges would be brought if similar actions happened between roommates.

          Mass shooter: voices in my head are telling me to kill people.

          Roommate: I’m gonna just ignore that. Hey, you wanna learn how to shoot? Let’s buy you a gun!

        • zaph@sh.itjust.works
          22·
          7 months ago

          Personally I’m not a big fan of children being tried as adults in general but that’s not really relevant I just don’t want it to seem like I’m defending that. Being tried as an adult doesn’t mean “this child has the mental capacity of an adult and should be treated as such,” it’s about the crimes he committed. If he was emancipated I could see your argument being a defense for the parents but he wasn’t.

          • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
            13·
            7 months ago

            Why would the crime committed have any bearing on whether the defendant should be tried as a minor or adult? If that were the case, the opposite should be possible too, like an adult that commits a crime so dumb or so poorly that they should be tried as a juvenile.

            The distinction is (or should be) about the mental capacity of the perpetrator. Prosecutors just love to do it so they appear to be “tough on crime” for the next election.

            • zaph@sh.itjust.works
              11·
              7 months ago

              Why would the crime committed have any bearing on whether the defendant should be tried as a minor or adult?

              Because our legal system is set up to stroke justice boners and not to rehabilitate criminals.

              If that were the case, the opposite should be possible too, like an adult that commits a crime so dumb or so poorly that they should be tried as a juvenile.

              That’d be an insanity plea.

              The distinction is (or should be) about the mental capacity of the perpetrator. Prosecutors just love to do it so they appear to be “tough on crime” for the next election.

              I wholeheartedly agree.

              • Copernican@lemmy.world
                1·
                7 months ago

                The distinction is (or should be) about the mental capacity of the perpetrator. Prosecutors just love to do it so they appear to be “tough on crime” for the next election.

                I wholeheartedly agree.

                Yes, but objectively applied criteria should used. And what is the mental responsibility of a child vs an adult should probably be about the age. What’s the purpose of this distinction if the measure of heinous the crime is trumps the mental capacity. And in this case, it seems like this kid also had mental health issues. Yet he him as an adult despite being a child that has mental instability.