What The Jennifer Crumbley Verdict Means For Parents Of School Shooters

In the wake of numerous tragic school shootings across the United States, a pressing question emerges: Should parents be held criminally responsible for the actions of their children? This debate has been reignited by the ongoing trial of Jennifer Crumbley, the mother of the teenager who carried out a deadly shooting at Oxford High School in Michigan in November 2021. Facing involuntary manslaughter charges, the case against Crumbley could set a significant legal precedent, underscoring the responsibility parents might bear for their children's actions.

Tony Brueski, host of the podcast "Hidden Killers," alongside attorney and former felony prosecutor Eric Faddis, delved into the complexities of this landmark case. "This trial is very interesting, one we have not seen before with this sort of a dynamic," Brueski remarked. The crux of their conversation revolved around the potential implications of the Crumbley trial for future cases and the broader societal obligation of parents to monitor their children's activities and mental health closely.

The prosecution's challenge in the Crumbley case lies in proving causation and the parents' knowledge or willful ignorance of their son's violent tendencies. "The prosecutor is going to have to prove that the Crumbleys' actions had a causal relationship with this school shooting," Faddis explained. This entails demonstrating that the parents knew or should have known of their child's proclivity for violence and yet facilitated his access to a firearm.

However, the discussion raised concerns about where to draw the line in holding parents accountable. "Parenting is hard as shit," Faddis candidly observed, highlighting the inherent challenges in navigating a child's mental health issues and the potential for unjust criminal prosecution of parents who may be struggling themselves. The dialogue underscored the nuanced distinction between negligence and criminal liability, questioning whether the prosecution of parents like the Crumbleys could indeed deter future tragedies.

Brueski and Faddis also touched upon the broader issue of mental health care accessibility and the societal tendency to seek simple solutions for complex problems. "We need to get a grip on the importance of mental health in our country, not just a grip on, let's try and punish everyone we possibly can," Brueski argued, suggesting that punitive measures against parents might not address the root causes of such devastating events.

The conversation ventured into the potential for retroactive prosecution, should the Crumbley case set a new legal standard. "If Jennifer Crumbley, the mother, is convicted, do they then go back to... Dylan Klebold's mother from Columbine?" Faddis pondered, illustrating the slippery slope of applying this precedent broadly and the ethical implications of revisiting past tragedies through a new legal lens.

Ultimately, Brueski and Faddis highlighted the delicate balance between ensuring accountability and recognizing the multifaceted challenges parents face, especially those with limited resources or knowledge. The discussion concluded on a note of caution, emphasizing the need for a thoughtful, comprehensive approach to preventing school shootings that goes beyond simply holding parents criminally responsible.

As the Crumbley trial unfolds, it prompts us to reflect on the broader societal responsibilities we share in preventing such tragedies. The questions raised in the "Hidden Killers" podcast leave us pondering: Can, and should, the law compel parents to be the frontline defense against school shootings, or does the solution lie in addressing the deeper issues of mental health care, firearm access, and societal support for struggling families?
Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: