this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
102 points (95.5% liked)

News

23284 readers
3574 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Copernican@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

Yeah, but it's weird when you 2 adults are tried for basically parental negligence of a minor, but that minor was tried as an adult. So if the minor is being tried as an adult, how can the parents be tried for not taking care of their minor? If the kid was tried as a kid this would make more sense to me.

[–] monsterlynn@kbin.social 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Personally I think he's too young to be tried as an adult and it's obvious that his negligent parents both ignored his cries for help AND encouraged him to use weapons that the law prohibits minors from owning.

But on the other hand, they weren't the ones that shot up the school, and he does pose a threat to society. If anything this case illustrates how messed up and convoluted the juvenile justice system is.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Not just the juvenile system but the system as a whole. A popular example is the family from the Making A Murderer documentary. The uncle and nephew were borh tried and convicted (separately) of the same murder but in each trial, the prosecutor gave wildly different descriptions of how the murder occurred so that it would better fit the forced, false confession from the nephew in his case and the evidence found at the scene in the other.

[–] Copernican@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

I think the PBS documentary on Kip Kinkel is also interesting: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kinkel/

There's no parents to charge because they were murdered, but the sister wants him to have an option for release after identifying the mental health issues and rehabilitation. But he has 111 years without parole. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kinkel/trial/letter.html

[–] Copernican@lemmy.world -3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I think these are the types of cases that make liberal leaning folks take a really ironic position. We talk about ending the prison industrial complex, focusing on rehabilitation, etc... But school shooting that in some way is predicated on right wing 2nd amendement rights, let's lock up as many people as we can for as long as we can, and screw juvenile courts for juveniles while we're at it.

[–] deft@lemmy.wtf 4 points 7 months ago

i don't see how that is an ironic or contradictory stance?

people who are a threat to themselves or society need to be locked up, monitored and rehabilitated.

simultaneously we need to repair the way we monitor and rehabilitate people because there is a need to do that in society.

[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago

Why, what is the liberal option for dealing with a mass murderer in the system that we currently have?

[–] Liz@midwest.social 0 points 7 months ago

They were charged with involuntary manslaughter. I would assume similar charges would be brought if similar actions happened between roommates.

Mass shooter: voices in my head are telling me to kill people.

Roommate: I'm gonna just ignore that. Hey, you wanna learn how to shoot? Let's buy you a gun!

[–] zaph@sh.itjust.works 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Personally I'm not a big fan of children being tried as adults in general but that's not really relevant I just don't want it to seem like I'm defending that. Being tried as an adult doesn't mean "this child has the mental capacity of an adult and should be treated as such," it's about the crimes he committed. If he was emancipated I could see your argument being a defense for the parents but he wasn't.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social -2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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 points 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.