Scott Tibbs
How far should responsibility for crimes extend?
By Scott Tibbs, March 1, 2024
In Exodus 21:28-29, God commands the death penalty for someone who does not restrain a dangerous animal, if that animal then kills someone. But while it is understood by both God's Law and common sense that people who fail to restrain dangerous animals are then responsible for the actions of that animal, what happens when it is a teenager who commits murder, rather than an animal that lacks the capacity for reason and does not have an eternal soul? When should his parents be responsible?
The criminal charges against the parents of Ethan Crumbley are disturbing, and not just because of this particular case. One could argue the Crumbleys were bad parents. That does not mean they are guilty of manslaughter. Extraordinary cases make bad law, and the Crumbley case sets a dangerous precedent that
will be expanded to other parents of teens who commit terrible crimes.
One could certainly say that the Crumbleys were irresponsible for not securing the firearm, given the teenager's depression and mental state. That law
was not on the books when Crumbley committed mass murder. However, it appears no one - including school officials - anticipated that the teenager was going to murder people in November 2021. They would have stepped in had they known.
This is not to say parents can never be held responsible for the crimes of their children. When teens commit horrible crimes in their own homes while the parents are present and do not intervene, the parents can and should face criminal charges for not intervening to protect innocent victims.
The thing I find most shocking is the lack of criminal accountability for school officials. The high school counselor, the dean and the principal did not send Crumbley home when they discovered disturbing drawings, and they
did not search his backpack. Had they taken that second step, fully allowed under the
in loco parentis doctrine, they would have found and confiscated the handgun. Why are they not facing prison? Putting criminal penalties on the parents, and not the government employees who could have stopped the massacre, looks like a Deep State cover up.
I understand the desire for "accountability" for the parents. (Or, more accurately, revenge.) But as
this editorial at
Reason points out, the state has already decided that Ethan Crumbley is fully responsible for his crimes: He has been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. (He really should be executed, but that injustice is another issue.) If he was five years older and committed a mass shooting at college, the parents would not be facing charges.
The November 2021 murders were a terrible tragedy and a crime that Almighty God finds abominable and for which the death penalty is the
only just punishment. But the precedent established here is dangerous. Once you give government a new tool or authority, that is never diminished. It is always expanded in ways that were not intended at the time, but are always anticipated by people who properly distrust expanding the authority of the state. It is only a matter of time until the true consequences of this decision are revealed.
Opinion Archives
E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
ConservaTibbs.com