Why the sentence imposed on Michigan school shooter Ethan Crumbley is significant

[Bradskii]

Imagine being 17 not given a chance to rehabilitate, no parole and no considerations - to die of old age in prison. I'm not saying what he did was not horrid. But to live only looking forward to death. Might as well just give him the death sentence and be done with it. What he is getting is nothing short of slow torture. Even his victims got a fast death.

That was a confusing post for me. You seem to disagree with most of which I said and then end with something I would have written myself. That paragraph above is something with which I completely agree. Even allowing for what he did, but considering the circumstances, the sentence is obscene.

 

[IceJad]

That was a confusing post for me. You seem to disagree with most of which I said and then end with something I would have written myself. That paragraph above is something with which I completely agree. Even allowing for what he did, but considering the circumstances, the sentence is obscene.

I'm consistent that a minor should be treated as a minor in the legal sense. If society says it is 18 then 18 it is. I know there will be those who would benefit or abuse this arbitrary calendar date. Better a minority get away than to open the gates for future minors to endure the same judgement. I have always been saying that or at least imply that. There are those who would think that due to the nature of the case it is important to punish him like an adult.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm not sure exactly what point you're making? Is it that we shouldn't punish kids who murder if we are sexualizing them in school? Or we shouldn't sexualize them in school? Or were you talking about something else?

Please don't be oblique on the point you're making, I'm not joking in any way, I don't really see what you're trying to say here....

The point I was simply making is

"We can't be letting kids aged 15 be making major life altering decisions about gender surgery, because they're not adults and not old enough to fully understand the long term consequences of actions" doesn't logically gel with handing down adult-level punishments from a legal standpoint when they make potentially life-altering mistakes in other ways.

I'm certainly not advocating for the former...but it drifts into the same realm, logically, as the age old question
"Why can an 18 year old get drafted and go to war, but can't buy a beer?"


As noted, obviously we pick ages that can be somewhat arbitrary to establish when "adulthood" begins, but why even establish those ages in the first place if people (and justice systems) are going to carve out exceptions to them whenever they feel like?

 

[Arcangl86]

While I do agree that a bright line approach doesn't always work and we sometimes need to look at individual cases, this one really bothers me. Like I can see a 17 year old being held fully responsible because a 17 year old has a lot of rights. But 15 is considered too young to do pretty much anything because we acknowledge they are too young to be able to make responsible decisions, yet treating that same person as fully criminal culpable?

 

[dogs4thewin]

While I do agree that a bright line approach doesn't always work and we sometimes need to look at individual cases, this one really bothers me. Like I can see a 17 year old being held fully responsible because a 17 year old has a lot of rights. But 15 is considered too young to do pretty much anything because we acknowledge they are too young to be able to make responsible decisions, yet treating that same person as fully criminal culpable?

It is already that way. SCOUNTS has ruled that if someone was a juvenile at the time of a crime ( even if charged as an adult) the court must consider the juvenile's age home life ECT before imposing a sentence of life without parole ( even if the same crime would carry a mandatory life without parole sentence if it was committed on or after a person's 18th birthday.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/09/us/michigan-oxford-shooting-sentence-judge-historic/index.html

CNN —
More than two years after Michigan’s deadliest school shooting, a judge imposed a historic sentence – and the harshest possible penalty – for the teenage gunman.

Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Kwamé Rowe sentenced Ethan Crumbley, 17, on Friday to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the November 2021 shooting that left four students dead at Oxford High School. Six other students and a teacher were also wounded in the attack.

It’s a punishment that has become both rare and a point of contention over concerns about sentencing a minor to die in a cell before they reach full maturity.

Crumbley, who was 15 at the time of the shooting, became the first minor to receive an original sentence of life without the possibility of parole in more than a decade since the US Supreme Court in 2012 banned mandatory life sentences for juveniles and ruled courts should consider the circumstances of each defendant and their maturity before such punishments are handed down.


This does raise a series of questions and ideological debates around a variety of topics surrounding when we consider someone to be an adult and capable of making their own independent decisions.

If a person committing a lethal crime at 15 can result in a life sentence because "they were old enough to understand the gravity of their actions"... how can we say a 15 year old isn't old enough to join the military, open a credit card, or get a tattoo?

Looked at from a different vantage point, if society is going to say we need to provide extra layers of protections for minors to account for their impulses that could very well change (that ties into some of the other hot button issues being debated today, and I think we all know the issues I'm talking about), then should we be giving such harsh sentences to minors?

It's a conundrum..."15 year olds shouldn't be making such life altering decisions" doesn't gel with "a crime committed at 15 should get an adult level punishment"

I understand that 18 was, in some ways, an arbitrary number that was picked due to general perceptions of when a person is "more adult than child" for "most people".

But I think this case is an interesting one and perhaps challenges some conceptions/perceptions on both sides.

It seems particularly harsh for a 15 year old. Your question in the bolded is a good one. A significant sentence, yes. Life in prison without possiblity of parole for a 15 year old? I don't know about that. And I suspect it will be appealed.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The point I was simply making is

"We can't be letting kids aged 15 be making major life altering decisions about gender surgery, because they're not adults and not old enough to fully understand the long term consequences of actions" doesn't logically gel with handing down adult-level punishments from a legal standpoint when they make potentially life-altering mistakes in other ways.

In what way though...we aren't saying 15yo children should be able to go around with guns at school. We are saying the exact opposite, aren't we? We are saying that's incredibly wrong.

I understand that some people are saying children can make life altering sex change decisions at 15 (or younger) but they don't actually mean that. The parents are the ones giving medical consent, right? Which means we all sort of agree that in reality, if the child ends up severely psychologically damaged or permanently physically damaged, it's some combination of the fault of the parents and doctors....not the children, right?

If people are saying that a 15yo can make drastically life altering and unnecessary medical decisions without a parent's consent...and 15yo children can take guns to school because they can fully understand what they are doing and have a firm grasp of consequences....

Yeah, they apparently think children are walking around making really clear choices and probably shouldn't be voting. Probably shouldn't even be living alone, or going outside without helmets.

Also, did you see the Netflix documentary Surviving the Flame? Weird cult headed by some goofy "matchmaker" guy who was able to talk multiple adult women into "being trans" to the point of undergoing medical procedures and surgeries. Wild stuff, especially for those that believe such things can't happen.

Critical Legal Theory was a thing that was built on these sorts of points. It was a widespread, sweeping movement where the main issue confronted was not only the arbitrary nature of laws, but the subjective nature of words and the often subjective application of law. In a country that seeks to treat all citizens equally can't possibly do so and is inherently unjust etc. What brought it crashing down was....debate. Critical Race Theory adopted some of the same arguments but avoids the debate entirely...and treats itself as a set of facts.

I think more to the point.....didn't they hold the parents responsible?

Because if they did, is that not a tacit admission that he wasn't entirely responsible for his own actions as an adult? Is this the same case I'm thinking of? That's the issue I think. You can make the argument that this teen was able to make these adult decisions and should receive an adult punishment....or his parents are in some way to blame for his behavior through negligence or abuse. They aren't in jail for simply hiding him or not calling the police on him, are they?

I'm certainly not advocating for the former...but it drifts into the same realm, logically, as the age old question
"Why can an 18 year old get drafted and go to war, but can't buy a beer?"

I get the arbitrary nature of the age of consent drifting from 16 to 18 to whatever in some places is odd... but it is, logically, something that needs be done or we're treating children like adults.

As noted, obviously we pick ages that can be somewhat arbitrary to establish when "adulthood" begins, but why even establish those ages in the first place if people (and justice systems) are going to carve out exceptions to them whenever they feel like?

Again....there's a punitive nature to justice. If people believe it's all about taking someone who made a mistake out of society, "fixing them", and releasing them back into society...it's not really that. It's about inflicting a punitive retribution upon those who abused and harmed others. If you can accept it's more about that than it is..."rehabilitation into society"...then it makes sense under certain circumstances we consider a child's crimes worthy of harsh punishment.

Had this child built a bomb that he then detonated and killed 50 people, I doubt we'd even be holding this discussion.

 

[zippy2006]

In what way though...we aren't saying 15yo children should be able to go around with guns at school. We are saying the exact opposite, aren't we? We are saying that's incredibly wrong.

This is a good point, and a rather pithy way to put it. According to @ThatRobGuy's logic, if we punish any minors as adults for murdering people with a(n illegal) gun, then we have to allow all minors to own guns. He thinks one exception is all that is needed to establish a new rule. It confuses law with modal logic. I pointed out a similar thing in #7.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In what way though...we aren't saying 15yo children should be able to go around with guns at school. We are saying the exact opposite, aren't we? We are saying that's incredibly wrong.

This is a good point, and a rather pithy way to put it. According to @ThatRobGuy's logic, if we punish any minors as adults for murdering people with a(n illegal) gun, then we have to allow all minors to own guns. He thinks one exception is all that is needed to establish a new rule. It confuses law with modal logic. I pointed out a similar thing in #7.

I'm questioning the other end of the equation and asking the question... Should we be punishing them as adults?

The exception scenario, however, would be a two way street as well, would it not?

For instance, if one is going to say "it's okay to give this particular 15 year old a life sentence in this instance because this particular 15 year old was mature enough to understand what they were doing", would that ever apply going in the other direction? Meaning, would we ever say "the age is normally 21 to buy beer, but this particular 17 year old is much more mature than the average 17 year old, so they can be trusted with that responsibility/privilege"

As I noted before, these "one-off carve-outs" only seem to apply with the crime & punishment side of the equation, never with the privilege side of the equation.

 

[zippy2006]

As I noted before, these "one-off carve-outs" only seem to apply with the crime & punishment side of the equation, never with the privilege side of the equation.

And I explained why in post #7. The law regarding minors is meant to protect them from harm. That is the purpose of the law. You seem to be supposing that the law has no purpose, and is instead a simple valuation, "Minors are not responsible." The exception on account of Crumbley is relevant to the purpose of the law. The alternative exceptions that you are proposing have no relation to the purpose of the law.

Suppose there is a beach with a strong current, such that it is illegal for minors to swim there. The rationale is that minors are not as strong and physically developed as adults. If the current is strong enough this law will save countless lives. Now there are some minors who are strong swimmers, even compared to adults. Is it unfair that they are not allowed to swim? Yes, in a way it is. But it doesn't matter. The purpose of this law is safety and protection, not fairness. A law is a rough and ready rule, applied to diverse and uneven circumstances. It levels things in a way that is helpful but always imperfect. Law always requires interpretation, done with respect to the purpose of the lawgiver (e.g. epikeia). The application of law is never logical necessity.

You really seem to be denying that there can be exceptions to rules. That is an odd doctrine, but it is entirely untenable in the realm of law.

 

[Bradskii]

It is already that way. SCOUNTS has ruled that if someone was a juvenile at the time of a crime ( even if charged as an adult) the court must consider the juvenile's age home life ECT before imposing a sentence of life without parole ( even if the same crime would carry a mandatory life without parole sentence if it was committed on or after a person's 18th birthday.

That surely wasn't done.

 

[dogs4thewin]

That surely wasn't done.

and if the lawyers can prove that he could and likely would win on appeal

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You really seem to be denying that there can be exceptions to rules. That is an odd doctrine, but it is entirely untenable in the realm of law.

I'm not denying that there can be exceptions...actually quite the opposite.

What I'm asking the overarching question of why those exceptions are only acknowledged within the realm of punishments, but never in terms of privileges. I, for the record, don't think we should ever see 15-17 year olds being "tried as adults" in courts. They're either adults or their not. If they're not, then they get the "kid gloves" level of punishment.

 

[zippy2006]

I'm not denying that there can be exceptions

I, for the record, don't think we should ever see 15-17 year olds being "tried as adults" in courts.

If you don't think minors can ever be tried as adults, then you are denying that there can be exceptions.

What I'm asking the overarching question of why those exceptions are only acknowledged within the realm of punishments, but never in terms of privileges.

My example of the beach in my last post addresses this, as does:

The exception on account of Crumbley is relevant to the purpose of the law. The alternative exceptions that you are proposing have no relation to the purpose of the law.​

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is a good point, and a rather pithy way to put it. According to @ThatRobGuy's logic, if we punish any minors as adults for murdering people with a(n illegal) gun, then we have to allow all minors to own guns. He thinks one exception is all that is needed to establish a new rule. It confuses law with modal logic. I pointed out a similar thing in #7.

Ty @zippy2006 , I always do try very hard to consider things logically, rationally, unless the topic is inherently subjective....sorry if you said it first. I tend to respond to the OP on short threads.

And that's why I usually give an opportunity for clarification before assuming someone has expressed themselves on any confusing question of genuine consideration (aka good faith question).

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm questioning the other end of the equation and asking the question... Should we be punishing them as adults?

It really becomes a philosophical discussion of justice then.

As in, what do you see as justice and what is it's purpose.

I can understand if you think the point is some extremely draconian across the board 1 punishment for all regardless of circumstances and the end goal being a rehabilited member of society, whether or not that goal is achieved, this looks extremely unjust.

If however, you believe each crime is relatively unique in its circumstances, that we can only follow our conscious and allow for differentiation within a set of guidelines...the goal being different in each case....then this is one of those possible outcomes some will disagree with strongly.

The exception scenario, however, would be a two way street as well, would it not?

For instance, if one is going to say "it's okay to give this particular 15 year old a life sentence in this instance because this particular 15 year old was mature enough to understand what they were doing", would that ever apply going in the other direction?

That might be the reasoning applied...but I don't think that's why we are doing it. It's a rationalization.

We're doing it because people were killed, and as such, those losses cannot be compensated for or restored. In acknowledging our failure to prevent the tragedy, we have assured the victims' families that the criminal will never be able to do so to another again. In reality, his full understanding of his crimes isn't a factor considered at his age (probably because he looks grown as a 15yo from his pictures), and he may well only come to fully understand what he has done years from now.

Should the victims feel this is unjust, or anyone else, his release can be petitioned.

Meaning, would we ever say "the age is normally 21 to buy beer, but this particular 17 year old is much more mature than the average 17 year old, so they can be trusted with that responsibility/privilege"

I don't think so. A line must be drawn somewhere....even if we fully acknowledge its arbitrary nature.

Let's imagine we had a psychological scale of maturity and teens could take a test, get a license to buy beer, etc.

It would still be an arbitrary line...it just now moves to the test.

As I noted before, these "one-off carve-outs" only seem to apply with the crime & punishment side of the equation, never with the privilege side of the equation.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you give a general example?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not denying that there can be exceptions...actually quite the opposite.

What I'm asking the overarching question of why those exceptions are only acknowledged within the realm of punishments, but never in terms of privileges. I, for the record, don't think we should ever see 15-17 year olds being "tried as adults" in courts. They're either adults or their not. If they're not, then they get the "kid gloves" level of punishment.

I think I get what you're saying and we do make exceptions all the time.

For example our current asylum system is an attempt to conform with international law, which many nations don't conform to despite agreement.

We have lowered the bar for applying for asylum, that the asylum seeker need not have any real understanding of what asylum is. We include many reasons for which asylum wasn't created. Those found ineligible even after judgement is rendered face no deportations in most cases.

What is that except a gigantic privilege that is being taken advantage of by so many?

I think you recognize the injustice here....and not in the asylum example....because it offends some sense of moral fairness. We don't tend to recognize privileges that don't offend a sense of moral fairness, or simply, they don't bother others.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you give a general example?

Sure...

If we busted a 19 year old drinking and driving, they get the same DUI charge as a 21 year old (plus an additional charge for underage consumption)

"We're charging you with this because you understand the potential consequences of drinking too much, you should've known better, the reason why you're not allowed to have this in the first place at your age is because someone your age doesn't fully understand the potential consequences of drinking too much" ???

It starts to become a self-contradicting position.

And while we've already discussed that the ages selected for things are somewhat arbitrary (or perhaps over-generalized may be a better way to put it), I think we need to pick an age of adulthood and stick with it and not only look for exemptions and carve-outs in cases where someone breaks the law.

"18 is an adult...unless you do this really bad thing at 16, then we'll find a way to pretend as if there's no difference between you and an 18 year old practically speaking"

And what I'm suggesting isn't necessarily radically out of step with what a lot of other 1st world countries do. For instance, Germany won't try anyone as an adult for crimes committed before 18. England and France will not "hold children accountable to the same extent as adults". Switzerland and Sweden focus almost strictly on rehabilitation and/or mental healthcare for juvenile offenders in situations where heinous crimes are committed.

In fact, we're on this short list (and not a good one, and not in good company) with regards to Juveniles getting treated as adults in the court system in the most harsh way possible:

 

[Ana the Ist]

And I explained why in post #7. The law regarding minors is meant to protect them from harm. That is the purpose of the law. You seem to be supposing that the law has no purpose, and is instead a simple valuation, "Minors are not responsible." The exception on account of Crumbley is relevant to the purpose of the law. The alternative exceptions that you are proposing have no relation to the purpose of the law.

Suppose there is a beach with a strong current, such that it is illegal for minors to swim there. The rationale is that minors are not as strong and physically developed as adults. If the current is strong enough this law will save countless lives. Now there are some minors who are strong swimmers, even compared to adults. Is it unfair that they are not allowed to swim? Yes, in a way it is. But it doesn't matter. The purpose of this law is safety and protection, not fairness. A law is a rough and ready rule, applied to diverse and uneven circumstances. It levels things in a way that is helpful but always imperfect. Law always requires interpretation, done with respect to the purpose of the lawgiver (e.g. epikeia). The application of law is never logical necessity.

You really seem to be denying that there can be exceptions to rules. That is an odd doctrine, but it is entirely untenable in the realm of law.

I didn't realize that we were only discussing exceptions regarding age limitations.

I thought it was exceptions generally.

People like to imagine the law as a constant, reliable thing.

It's not really. It's usually aimed at a goal whether that goal is completely rational or not. Murder is illegal because it's hard to have a society where it isn't. People tend to overuse murder to solve problems.

It's a practical reason.

Not an inherently rational/logical one.

 

[Chrystal-J]

His parents are on trial for supplying him with the gun.