James and Jennifer Crumbley were recently found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in connection with their son’s crime, and they were sentenced to serve 10-15 years. Their son, Ethan, had previously pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life without parole for the school shooting he carried out when he was 15. The shooting resulted in the death of four students, and injuries to six other students and a teacher. Legal experts say the case could set a precedent for holding parents responsible for serious crimes taken by their children.
Generally, most psychologists feel that teenagers Ethan’s age should be expected to take responsibility for their actions. Imagine a 14-year-old beating a classmate to death, and saying, “But Judge, you need to understand, my mother is a prostitute, dad is an alcoholic, I am physically and emotionally abused at home—I really should not be held responsible for taking my anger out on a classmate.” Psychologists would note that many kids have miserable environments, but they don’t go out and kill. Blaming parents for one’s actions just doesn’t measure up. Even a young kid should face the consequences of making poor choices.
Some say, however, that the Crumbley case may be different. At the parents’ trial, prosecutors argued they ignored signs their son was seriously troubled and bought him a powerful Sig Sauer 9mm handgun as an early Christmas present. Prosecutors presented evidence showing that the murder weapon was never properly secured away from their troubled 15-year-old son. In fact, the mother had taken Ethan to a shooting range a few days before the shooting. When the parents were called into the school to meet with counselors about their son’s troublesome behavior at school, the counselors showed them drawings Ethan had made. The images featured a pistol resembling the Sig Sauer gun alongside a figure with bullet wounds and phrases like “blood everywhere,” and “help me, the thoughts won’t stop.” The counselors suggested they take their son and get him professional help. Instead, they left their son at school and returned to work. What’s especially troublesome is that they never told the counselors about the gun they had given their son. A few hours after that meeting of school counselors and the parents, Ethan left a school bathroom with the gun and began firing. Prosecutors told the jury if the parents had taken a “tragically few steps,” four students would likely still be alive.
Judge Cheryl Matthews sentenced the Crumbleys to the stiffest penalty possible, but said that the sentences were not designed to send a message that families are responsible for their children’s crimes. The judge said, “These convictions are not about poor parenting. These convictions confirm repeated acts, or lack of acts, that could have halted an oncoming runaway train. About repeatedly ignoring things that would make a reasonable person feel the hair on the back of their neck stand up.” It’s not clear what the legal consequences of the Crumbley trial will be for parents whose kids commit crimes, but my bet is that in the future, the judge’s sentence will result in a lot of unfortunate and unintended consequences when assessing parental responsibility. “Poor parenting” is a vague phrase, but it may very well become a pathway to jail sentences for parents whose kids break the law.
What level of responsibility should parents be prepared to accept for their kids’ transgressions? Several things for sure: parents must be aware of their unique position as mentors and role models for their kids; they must help their kids understand responsibility for the consequences of their actions; they must be effective controllers of rewards and punishments to guide kids toward socially accountable actions, not indoctrinate them and introduce them to a world of violence, chaos, and self-absorption; finally, they should not encourage their kids to adopt the destructive actions of that brutal and aggressive world. But what if parents fall short of these ideals, and their child commits a serious crime? Should the parents be held legally responsible? Judge Matthews decision greases the slope that leads to an affirmative answer to that question.
The Crumbley case coincides with the current societal trend toward allowing, even encouraging, young people to be sheltered—usually by parents—from the consequences of making poor decisions. The result is that the kids develop expectations of entitlement and freedom from accountability. How ironic it will be if those parents who shelter their kids from responsibility will be held responsible for their kids’ criminal actions.
Psychology and Stress 