XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.society.liberalism, sac.politics   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: jail.democrat@parents.too   
      
   What’s happening   
   The first parents in the U.S. to be convicted in a mass shooting caused by   
   their child were each sentenced to at least 10 years in prison this week.   
   In separate trials, Jennifer and James Crumbley were convicted of   
   involuntary manslaughter for failing to prevent their teenage son Ethan   
   from killing four students at a Michigan high school in 2021.   
      
   The prosecution accused the Crumbleys of not securing a newly purchased   
   gun in their home and failing to act on warning signs that their son’s   
   mental health was deteriorating.   
      
   Meanwhile, the defense had argued at a pretrial hearing that holding the   
   Crumbleys criminally responsible for their son’s mass shooting would kick   
   the door wide open to holding parents accountable for any number of   
   behaviors.   
      
   “If I have a child that goes and has sex with an underage girl, do I as   
   the parent then become liable for criminal sexual conduct because my child   
   used the cellphone I technically own, drove the car I technically own, and   
   I knew my son had an affinity to like girls?” defense attorney Shannon   
   Smith argued during a 2023 pretrial hearing.   
      
   Just before sentencing the Crumbleys on Tuesday, Oakland County Judge   
   Cheryl Matthews 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.”   
      
   The Crumbley convictions have once again ignited conversations surrounding   
   the criminal liability parents should assume when it comes to their   
   child’s actions and behavior. When it comes to parental responsibility   
   laws, they are typically broken down into two types: civil and criminal.   
      
   Parental civil liability laws have been on the books since at least 1846,   
   when Hawaii passed a law that essentially holds parents financially   
   responsible for the actions of their minor children. All states have a   
   version of this law that varies from intentional acts to accidents caused   
   by children.   
      
   When it comes to parental criminal liability, laws have been on the books   
   since 1899, when Colorado officials established a law that made   
   “contributing to the delinquency of a minor” a crime. The purpose of these   
   laws was to protect children from a parent or adult engaging them in   
   illegal activities, like delivering drugs. Most states designate this as a   
   misdemeanor offense, typically punishable by a fine and/or jail time from   
   six months to a year.   
      
   Why there’s debate   
   Proponents of holding parents criminally liable for more serious offenses,   
   like a school shooting, believe that punishing parents could serve as a   
   deterrent and a warning about safely securing guns.   
      
   Gun control advocates like Nick Suplina, senior vice president for law and   
   policy at Everytown for Gun Safety, argue that convictions and punishments   
   — like in the case of the Crumbleys — have previously resulted in laws and   
   parental awareness about matters of safety.   
      
   “There was a time where a parent might not really think about the   
   unsupervised party at their home that serves alcohol to minors until there   
   is a prosecution of parents for that party when a teenager is injured in a   
   drunk driving accident, right?” Suplina told WBUR’s On Point. “That is now   
   a known thing among parents of adolescents, of the risk of having a party   
   like that.” Suplina noted that laws have been implemented requiring gates   
   around pools to stop a wandering child from drowning.   
      
   However, on the other end of the parental criminal liability spectrum,   
   opponents argue that low-income people and minorities could be   
   disproportionately affected. Take, for example, California’s controversial   
   truancy law championed by then state Attorney General Kamala Harris, which   
   carries misdemeanor penalties for parents whose children regularly missed   
   school.?   
      
   Cheree Peoples, a Black mother in California, was charged with a criminal   
   misdemeanor under California’s truancy law in 2013 because her 11-year-old   
   daughter, who has sickle cell anemia, missed too much school. Peoples was   
   in contact with school officials to work out a specific learning plan   
   designed for children with disabilities. Despite this, police officers   
   showed up at her house, handcuffed her and booked her, before she was   
   released later that day.   
      
   What’s next   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)