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.

  • 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.