Should parents be judged for their kid's crimes?

[John Helpher]

Summary: Parents are held liable for their son's school shooting in that they bought him the gun and generally held care over his mental health. They are each facing 15 years in jail and have consistently pleaded not guilty. They wanted the Michigan supreme court to dismiss the charges on the grounds that their son's behaviour was completely independent of them, but instead the case is allowed to continue.

What do you think?

 

[PloverWing]

I genuinely don't know. Obviously, they should never have bought him the gun. I assume they will be regretting that purchase for the rest of their lives. But was it a criminal act, if they didn't realize that their son was having violent delusions? Maybe not?

Controlling what our teen/adult children do is hard. Guessing what our teen/adult children are going to do next is hard. Correctly discerning the mental health state of our teen/adult children is hard. I'm not sure at what point parental mistakes cross over into being illegal mistakes. I don't know what the Crumbleys imagined that their son was going to do with the handgun when they bought it for him, but it looks like they didn't intend for him to shoot his classmates. Perhaps much depends on the fine print of the local laws.

 

[John Helpher]

But was it a criminal act, if they didn't realize that their son was having violent delusions? Maybe not?

I had a similar thought as I was reading the article with the parents crying and saying it's not their fault. But, the school says the morning of the shooting they called the parents in for a consultation over a picture he'd drawn of him shooting a kid. The parents didn't act on that warning.

Later, when they searched his backpack, they found a journal where he complained to his parents that he's hearing voices and needs therapy, but they wouldn't listen (probably because therapy is expensive).

So, it does seem like they had plenty of warning. At the very least they should have taken the gun away from him. Their testimony is that they had it safely locked up, so it wasn't like they had to convince him to give it back. They should have been able to just go take it.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Summary: Parents are held liable for their son's school shooting in that they bought him the gun and generally held care over his mental health. They are each facing 15 years in jail and have consistently pleaded not guilty. They wanted the Michigan supreme court to dismiss the charges on the grounds that their son's behaviour was completely independent of them, but instead the case is allowed to continue.

What do you think?

Well this is the reason "for never telling the school about the weapon when they were summoned over his troubling behavior." However, it is unclear as they claim that they did. But I believe the biggest problem here is that they fled from authority. That is unacceptable behavior!

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, they should be held responsible. They bought their son a gun, even though he was mentally unstable and they had been informed of that by the school.

 

[Stephen3141]

Parents are responsible for the actions of their children, IF

1 They do not teach their children sound morals
2 They ignore signs of impending evil behavior that they could have avoided
3 The kid is under the age of "accountability".

From a Christian point of view, many parents have not raised their children
with basic Judeo-Christian morality, upon which the fair rule of law in
America is based.

 

[Flaunge]

I think the idea that someone is a legal child until 18 (or any other arbitrary age) and then suddenly becomes a developed adult in a nanosecond is obviously ridiculous and false.

It's obviously a gradual process, and the law should acknowledge it on an individual basis. No sane person would retaliate a slap in the face done by a newborn, but everyone knows a 17 years old, for instance, knows what they're doing if they slap you in the face (excluding mental issues, intoxication, etc, obviously).

So, if a parent is careless with a small child and something bad happens to the child or to a third party, yes, the parent is to blame. But if it's a teen for instance, they're old enough to generally know what they're doing, although it's comprehensible to take life immaturity into account and give a milder punishment, for instance.

The only not-completely-arbitrary line concerning this subject is puberty, really. And I believe this is what Paul refers to in 1 COR 7:36 in relation to marriage, for an example.

 

[rjs330]

Yes I think parents should be held accountable for their kids actions to a point.
Not every time and certainly not in every circumstance.

But in THIS case yes. They KNEW their child was struggling with serious mental health issues. They bought the kid a gun under those circumstances. And they didn't seize the gun as soon as the school told them of their concerns. They were fools and deserve to be treated like fools.

My son growing up I would have had no problem buying him a gun. He was well adjusted. Had lots of friends, was doing well in school, showed great responsibility etc etc.

But kids like the one in the OP usually have some signs of problems. Depression, withdrawn, school issues etc.

 

[com7fy8]

But even an imbalanced person can know killing is wrong.

If you are sick, but you have loving character . . . "Love does no harm to a neighbor," we have in Romans 13:10. So, I would say a person only physically sick but with kind character is not going to hurt someone while only physically sick.

But now we see the lines muddled between physical sickness and spiritual evil of a selfish and worldly personality.

So, if the guy is spiritually sick because of sin's evil spirit (Ephesians 2:2), yes he is liable.

And as much as his parents did not bring him up to love . . . were not good examples, I mean . . . they shared liability somehow, I would say.

But you can't say they were guilty of actively causing him to kill.

Any person born in sin can be guilty of murder. That is on the person who is guilty. But parents are guilty of not being a good example and not teaching the person, in any case.

God told one prophet that people's blood would be on him if he did not tell certain people to repent. So, yes I see how God could hold parents responsible, as much as they did not be good examples and teach and warn their child.

And in the early scripture, if you are told your ox has been aggressive, but you don't restrain it and it kills someone . . . that is death penalty for you. So, possibly those parents got off with a very lenient penalty, if they were told he is dangerous and did not take effective measures to control him.

But this world lets people get away with evil stuff. They watch out for their own, in different ways. So, they might hold the parents liable, but give them what really is just a slap on the wrist.

 

[Larniavc]

Summary: Parents are held liable for their son's school shooting in that they bought him the gun and generally held care over his mental health. They are each facing 15 years in jail and have consistently pleaded not guilty. They wanted the Michigan supreme court to dismiss the charges on the grounds that their son's behaviour was completely independent of them, but instead the case is allowed to continue.

What do you think?

If the kids were able access the guns because parents left them able to be accessed then yes.

But also punish the kids.

 

[anetazo]

Both are accountable.
Hosea chapter 5 to document parents are accountable to teach bible to their children.
Ephesians chapter 6 is cross reference.

Jeremiah chapter 18 to document, every one is accountable for their own sins.

Corinthians chapter 5 . Everyone must appear before judgement seat of christ.

 

[Open Heart]

Summary: Parents are held liable for their son's school shooting in that they bought him the gun and generally held care over his mental health. They are each facing 15 years in jail and have consistently pleaded not guilty. They wanted the Michigan supreme court to dismiss the charges on the grounds that their son's behaviour was completely independent of them, but instead the case is allowed to continue.

What do you think?

In that particular case, the parents were negligent, and their negligence resulted in many deaths. In such case, throw the book at them.

I remember in M Scott Peck's book "People of the Lie" how he illustrated evil with the story of parents who gave their son the gun his brother had committed suicide with as a birthday present. There are just evil parents sometimes. and their kids pay the price.

But parents are not ALWAYS responsibility for what their kids do. I've seen plenty of parents on Dr. Phil who have several very well behaved children, and one monster that violently attacks them and threatens to kill them. Obviously the problem is not the parents, since they have several well adjusted kids. Sometimes, sadly, people are just born with bad wiring in their brains.

 

[Estrid]

Parents are responsible for the actions of their children, IF

1 They do not teach their children sound morals
2 They ignore signs of impending evil behavior that they could have avoided
3 The kid is under the age of "accountability".

From a Christian point of view, many parents have not raised their children
with basic Judeo-Christian morality, upon which the fair rule of law in
America is based.

Its Christian, but its also traditional Chinese
thinking.

( side note that "rule of law", like "freedom" are
far from the absolutes that some Americans see
them as being)

 

[ruthiesea]

Yes or no depend on the circumstances. There is no clear cut answer.

 

[J_B_]

I'm restricting my comments here to responsibilities of the office of parent. Doing things like giving a gun to someone you know to be mentally ill is (or at least should be) a crime for anyone - parent or not.

But with respect to the responsibilities of being a parent, I don't think anyone has mentioned obligations as a mandatory reporter. I was a mandatory reporter when I held my foster care license. I think it's reasonable to expect the same of parents, but not much beyond that. If they know their child is dangerous, and they report it, they can't be expected to do much more than that.

I've been involved with some troubled people and it is much more complicated and difficult than all the armchair quarterbacks on this forum realize. I feel for the parents in the case mentioned; I know that pain all too well. But the awful truth is that they do bear some responsibility.

 

[th1bill]

Summary: Parents are held liable for their son's school shooting in that they bought him the gun and generally held care over his mental health. They are each facing 15 years in jail and have consistently pleaded not guilty. They wanted the Michigan supreme court to dismiss the charges on the grounds that their son's behaviour was completely independent of them, but instead the case is allowed to continue.

What do you think?

My son became a criminal at seventeen and jail time with stabbings did nothing to change his lifestyle. Nothing I did affected his use of dope and the theft to support his habit. There are to many variables here to make uninformed replies.