On the Sentencing of Ethan Crumbley's Parents

An "Unprecedented" Sentence Has Precedents

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021, Ethan Crumbley, then fifteen years old, shot several of his classmates at Oxford High School in Oxford, Michigan. Four students died; six students and a teacher were injured. Authorities charged Crumbley as an adult for twenty-four crimes. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional twenty-four years.

     Even though they had no direct involvement with or foreknowledge of the shooting, James and Jennifer Crumbley, Ethan Crumbley’s parents, were charged with involuntary manslaughter for whatever supposed, indirect actions or inactions putatively led to their son’s crimes. Parents of their sons’ victims asked the court for convictions and harsh sentences. Although sentencing guidelines for involuntary manslaughter recommend seven years, Mr. and Mrs. Crumbley were sentenced to ten to fifteen years each, the maximum allowed by law.

Reaction to the sentences, which have been described as unprecedented—they were certainly the first parents of a convicted mass shooter to be charged—has been mixed. Judge Jeanine Pirro opined at foxnews.com that the convictions and sentences were proper because parents have an obligation to society. The Atlantic opined that Mr. and Mrs. Crumbley were scapegoats for “America’s gun problem”. Craig Scott, brother of Rachel Scott, a fatal victim of the 1997 Columbine shooting, stated that the sentencing sets a dangerous precedent.

Scott’s views are the most convincing. I would not entirely agree that the sentences are unprecedented—they’re part of a long concatenation of concerning events—but his statements are cogent and sensible.