September 8, 2024 • 17 mins
Share your feedback with us here.
Last week, a 14-year-old killed four people - two students and two teachers - at his school in the US state of Georgia. He also injured another nine, in what was the country’s 385th mass shooting this year. The shooters’ father has been arrested for multiple charges, including involuntary manslaughter, in relation to his son’s killings. So should parents be held legally liable for the actions of their child? In today’s deep dive, we’ll explore the precedent that has been set in the U.S.
The Daily Aus is a media company focused on delivering accessible and digestible news to young people. We are completely independent. If you’d like to support us, the best way to do that is to click ‘follow’ on Spotify or Apple and to leave us a five-star review.
Also, telling a friend about TDA always helps!
Want more from TDA?
Subscribe to The Daily Aus newsletter
Subscribe to The Daily Aus’ YouTube Channel
Have feedback for us?
We’re always looking for new ways to improve what we do. If you’ve got feedback, we’re all ears. Tell us here.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Already and this is the daily Ars. This is the
dailiahs oh, now it makes sense.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Hello and welcome to the Daily Os. I'm zara, I'm billy.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Last week, a fourteen year old killed four people, two
students and two teachers at his school in the US
state of Georgia. He also injured another nine in what
was the country's three hundred and eighty fifth mass shooting
this year. In the days following the incident, the shooter's
father has been arrested for multiple charges, including involuntary manslaughter,
(00:42):
in relation to his son's killings. So should parents be
held legally liable for the actions of their child? In
today's deep dive, we will explore the precedent that has
been set in the US before that, though Zara. What
is making headlines today?
Speaker 2 (01:01):
The federal government has confirmed there will be questions on
both sexual orientation and gender identity in the twenty twenty
sixth census. The government backflipped on its decision to not
include these questions in the next census, following criticism from
LGBTIQ plus advocates and some labour MPs. Speaking on ABC's Insiders,
(01:21):
Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the government had quote understood the
feedback it received and took it very seriously.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
The UK government has launched an investigation into Ticketmaster following
complaints about the purchase process for the long awaited Oasis reunion.
The band, led by brothers Liam and Noel Gallagher, announced
last month they would reunite after decades away from the stage,
sparking huge demand for tickets. Now, the UK Competition and
Markets Authority its equivalent to Australia's ABLEC, is investigating ticket
(01:54):
Master's dynamic pricing. The feature adjust ticket prices based on
how many pe people are trying to buy them. It's
set to consider whether this was legal and if prospective
buyers were given enough notice that dynamic pricing would be
in place. The CMA said it wants customers to submit
proof or photos of their purchasing experience to assist the investigation.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
The bus driver responsible for a crash that killed ten
people and injured twenty five others in the Hunter Valley
last year will face sentencing this week. Brett Andrew Butden
pleaded guilty to ten counts of dangerous driving causing death,
nine counts of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm and
sixteen counts of furious driving causing bodily harm. The families
(02:39):
and loved ones of the victims will be in caught
to deliver victim impact statements.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
In today's Good News. In a potential breakthrough for the
future of medical imaging, researchers in the US have discovered
a way to use food dye to see through skin.
A team at Stanford University tested a blend of chemicals
in including common food dye, on mice, which allowed scientists
to see the animal's organs and blood flow. The mixture
(03:07):
washed off with water, leaving the mice unharmed. If this
process works on humans, researchers said it could replace X
rays and other scans, and even make laser tattoo removal easier.
Lead scientist Guassong Hoong said quote, if we could just
look at what's going on under the skin instead of
cutting into it or using radiation to get a less
(03:28):
than clear look, we could change the way we see
the human body.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
So, Billy, in today's deep Dive, I know that you
want to explore this angle that we've seen in headlines,
and you and I have been speaking about a bit,
which is whether or not parents should be held criminally
responsible for their child's criminal actions. Before we explore that angle, though,
I did just want you to maybe take a step
back and lay out the facts as to why we're
actually talking about this story today.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
Yeah, So, on Wednesday last week, a fourteen year old
boy was arrested over a fatal school shooting in the
US state of Georgia. Now, authorities alleged that the fourteen
year old boy opened fire at his local high school,
and it's alleged that he killed two teachers and two
students before he surrendered two authorities. I think it's one
(04:21):
of the rare examples where the shooter is actually still alive,
and so he is in custody and he faced court
on Friday. Nine others were also injured in the shooting,
and at the time of recording, no motive has been identified.
We do know that he seemed to have this real
(04:41):
interest around mass shootings, but we don't know too much
more about that. Authorities are still investigating that. What we
do know is that it was the state of George's
deadliest school shooting in its history, and we also know,
according to analysis by The Washington Post, that the boy
is the youngest Mas school shooter in about twenty five
(05:05):
years in the US. Now, the fourteen year old was
charged with four counts of felony murder, and authorities have
announced that they have charged him as an adult, not
as a minor, which is allowed in the state of Georgia.
Now why we're talking about it today is that on
Thursday night, authorities held a press conference and they announced
(05:27):
that the father of the fourteen year old boy has
also been arrested and is facing his own charges in
relation to his son's actions. And you could really tell
during the press conference, which was, like I said, just
held two days after the mass shooting, just how raw
the devastation still was.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
We're heartbroken. A young person brought a gun into a school,
committed an evil act, and he took lives, and he
injured many other people, not only physically but mentally.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
And I mean, obviously the investigation into the shooter and
what motivated him and why he did what he did
is ongoing, So we might just park that there for
a second. But what I find so interesting is that
you mentioned the father has been arrested.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
Yeah, it goes around this idea that just because the
father didn't pull the trigger does that mean that he
can't be held legally liable for his son's actions?
Speaker 2 (06:25):
What has he been charged with? Because I imagine that
that's quite a complex legal area to explore.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
So he was arrested and charged with four counts of
involuntary manslaughterer, two counts of second degree murder, and eight
counts of cruelty to children.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Can you just step listeners through what those charges actually mean?
I mean, I know that we didn't get a whole
heap of information, but just in a general sense, what
do those mean?
Speaker 1 (06:52):
Yeah, the authorities did decline to explain the charges further. Well,
I'll tell you quickly what those different charges usually mean.
So involuntary manslaughter essentially means the illegal killing of someone
without malice and without intent, and then second degree murder
means the killing was unplanned or it was impulsive. Now,
(07:15):
the only thing that authorities did say in relation to
these charges is that the father allegedly knowingly allowed his
son to possess a weapon. And when I was doing
research for this, I saw that sources had spoken to
CNN who had said that the shooter's father actually bought
the gun that was used in the mass shooting. As
(07:36):
a holiday present for his son in December of twenty
twenty three. Now that's just what sources are saying. It
hasn't been confirmed by the authorities, but I think it
does kind of paint a picture of kind of the
environment that this boy was possibly living in.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
I also saw headlines about the fact that authorities seem
to have had prior contact with the father before this incident.
Can you just provide a bit more information there.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Yeah, so they had contact with the father and also
the boy. So last year, Colt Gray, that's the name
of the fourteen year old boy. He posted online a
comment that said, quote shoot up a middle school. And
so that was posted on discord under a pseudonym, a
username that wasn't his direct name, and that caused someone
(08:24):
who saw it to reach out to authorities to investigate
if that was a real threat. Now I should say
that at the time they didn't know if it was
definitely him. So authorities went to the boy's house and
they spoke to him. He was then thirteen years old,
and they also spoke to his father, and the boy
denied that it was him who posted that threat. Who
(08:45):
posted that comment, and at the time Colt's father also
told authorities that his son quote knows the seriousness of
weapons and what they can do and how to use
them and not use them. And that's according to a
transcript of the conversation that was obtained by The New
York Times. Investigators ultimately decided after that conversation with Colt
(09:06):
and his father that they couldn't conclusively prove that Colt
was behind the account that posted that threat, and so
they basically just left it at that.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
I mean, there's so much there, and I'm sure there's
so much that's going to be combed through to understand how,
you know, they got from there to the incident that
happened last week. But it's clear that the shooter's father
was already in some sort of conversation with authorities. As
you said, that didn't really go anywhere. But broadening out
(09:37):
from just this case, is there a precedent for a
parent actually being held legally liable for the actions of
their child.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
Yeah, So the Georgia Bureau of Investigation was actually asked
that exact question during their press conference on Thursday, and
they said that they weren't aware of any precedent for this,
but they hadn't looked into it. Clearly it wasn't a
priority at the time, but if we look elsewhere in
the country, there is precedent for this, and there's quite
recent precedent for this. So earlier this year in the
(10:08):
US state of Michigan, the parents of a teenager who
murdered four students at a school in twenty twenty one,
they were found guilty. So the parents were found guilty
of involuntary manslaughter and they were sentenced to at least
ten years in prison.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
I'm just clarifying voluntary manslaughter is the same charges that
this father is facing.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
Yeah, it's included in the slate of charges that the
father is facing, but he's also facing other ones as well. Now,
the names of these parents were James and Jennifer Crumbly,
and their guilty verdict represented the first time parents in
the US had been held criminally responsible for a mass
shooting by their child.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
I think that it's pretty astounding, given I think we
mentioned that we were above three hundred and fifty mass
shootings just this year alone, just in the US, that
it was only this year for the very first time,
that that precedent was set for a parent to be
held criminally responsible for the actions of their child. What
were the prosecutor's arguments in that specific case talking about
(11:11):
their James and Jennifer Crumbley.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Yeah, So the prosecutors argued that the parents had ignored
quite clear warning signs and that they also missed cries
for help from their son, who was quite open about
the fact that he was struggling with his mental health.
There was a lot of evidence about him drawing pictures
that said help me. So the prosecutors were saying that
(11:35):
they just completely ignored that. One of the prosecutors said
in their closing argument, referring to the dad here quote,
James Crumbly was presented with the easiest, most glaring opportunities
to prevent the deaths of these four students, and he
did nothing.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
They also said that the father had actually bought the
gun for his son as an early Christmas present for
him four days before the mass shooting occurred in twenty
twenty one.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
Almost eerie. How yeah, how similar some of the storylines
here are.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Yeah. I mean, the current case that we're talking about
is only allegations, so we can't say conclusively that there
are direct parallels, but just reading about it, you can't help.
But just think how similar these two cases do seem.
And the prosecutors also said that the parents failed to
secure the gun, so failed to put it in any
safe place that would have avoided their son using it
(12:28):
without their supervision. Now, that was the main focus from
the prosecutors on the father, that he had literally bought
the gun that his son used to kill four people,
and that he made no effort to prevent his son
from carrying out this dangerous crime. But for the mother
it was a little bit different. They presented a different
argument and different evidence for her. They provided evidence that
(12:51):
they said, suggested that she was negligent and detached as
a mother, and that, like I said before, she ignored
warning signs that prosecute you say, we're clearly there. And
in both cases, the prosecutors were successful in arguing that
the parents should be held legally liable for their actions
of their child, and that case has certainly set a
(13:14):
precedent for the country. It was a really historic decision
made by the jurors and it will be interesting to
see how it does set precedent for future cases.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
Yeah, I mean this as you have said, that seem
to be quite a few similarities in the cases, and
it'll be interesting to see what the criminal process looks
like from here. Clearly there is this I don't know
if movement is the right word, but there is this
effort to try and broaden the understanding of how and
why these mass shootings are occurring at the rate they are,
(13:46):
and that partly the role of parents is being looked
at and examined and coming under question. Are their arguments
against this logic? What is the other side of the
coin when it comes to who should be held criminally responsible?
Speaker 3 (14:02):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (14:02):
I looked into this and I read a few different
opinions from academics who explained why some could be against
this criminal justice approach, or not necessarily against it, but
maybe just cautious about maybe over relying on it. So
one opinion I read was just posing the question, you know,
where do you draw the line in holding one person
(14:23):
responsible for another person's actions.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
I mean, I think that's interesting because that would probably
fall down in this case when we're talking about a
fourteen year old. Yeah, I feel like that logic, can
I guess hold up when we're talking about an adult,
But a fourteen year old, I think it's different.
Speaker 1 (14:42):
Yeah, but I guess what this academic was saying that,
you know, if your child shop lists, for example, is
that something like now, because we have this president, is
that something that now you can hold the parents legally
responsible for a less severe crime. I guess it was
the argument there. Another article I read was by academic
Victoria Kane for Time magazine, and she was basically saying
(15:04):
that there isn't actually proof that going down this route
could actually reduce youth crime. So she said, quote, the
biggest problem with such laws is that they have never
been proven to prevent crime. Blaming individual parents for children's
crimes lets communities ignore more difficult and divisive tasks eliminating poverty,
(15:24):
curbing child abuse, providing mental health care, and limiting children's
access to guns. She also continued, quote, as Americans lean
on parental responsibility laws to prevent crime and exact retribution,
they should be careful that they aren't letting the broader
community off too easy.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
So so interesting. It reminds me. In your twelve in
legal studies, we were learning about the purposes of punishment,
and you know, one of them is retribution, which is
that you pay for your crimes. That there is punishment,
but another is rehabilitation, and another is deterrent. So it's
like each of these leavers is being pulled. And what
is actually happening broadly across society when this sort of
(16:05):
precedents are being made.
Speaker 1 (16:07):
Yeah, it's about, you know, do you pay for the
crime or do you try to address the source of
the crime, And both are super important. So that's those
who question it. But there are, of course many advocates
for this path, including President Joe Biden. He said last week,
you've got to hold parents accountable if they let their
child have access to these guns. So there are many
(16:29):
people who are for it. Obviously the prosecutors in the
cases that I have mentioned. President Joe Biden is for it,
but they did think it was worth mentioning those who
were questioning it.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
And I mean, just on an ending note, to have
the president of one of the most powerful countries in
the world say it's about parents being accountable for letting
their children have access to those guns, when perhaps on
the other end, people are arguing that nobody should have
access to those guns opens up a different can of worms,
and one that the US will continue to debate, I
think till the end of time. Thank you so much
(17:00):
for listening to today's episode of The Daily os and.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
Before we go, we are currently running a survey for
this podcast. We would love to hear any feedback you
have for us on what you like about the podcast,
what you think we could improve on. We are all
e is a link for that is in today's show notes.
Thank you so much for listening, and we will be
back again tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (17:24):
My name is Lily Madden and I'm a proud Dunda
Bungelung Kalgotin woman from Gadighol Country.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
The Daily oz acknowledges that this podcast is recorded on
the lands of the Gadighl people and pays respect to
all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island and nations. We pay
our respects to the first peoples of these countries, both
past and present.
Already and this is the daily Ars. This is the
dailiahs oh, now it makes sense.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Hello and welcome to the Daily Os. I'm zara, I'm billy.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Last week, a fourteen year old killed four people, two
students and two teachers at his school in the US
state of Georgia. He also injured another nine in what
was the country's three hundred and eighty fifth mass shooting
this year. In the days following the incident, the shooter's
father has been arrested for multiple charges, including involuntary manslaughter,
(00:42):
in relation to his son's killings. So should parents be
held legally liable for the actions of their child? In
today's deep dive, we will explore the precedent that has
been set in the US before that, though Zara. What
is making headlines today?
Speaker 2 (01:01):
The federal government has confirmed there will be questions on
both sexual orientation and gender identity in the twenty twenty
sixth census. The government backflipped on its decision to not
include these questions in the next census, following criticism from
LGBTIQ plus advocates and some labour MPs. Speaking on ABC's Insiders,
(01:21):
Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the government had quote understood the
feedback it received and took it very seriously.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
The UK government has launched an investigation into Ticketmaster following
complaints about the purchase process for the long awaited Oasis reunion.
The band, led by brothers Liam and Noel Gallagher, announced
last month they would reunite after decades away from the stage,
sparking huge demand for tickets. Now, the UK Competition and
Markets Authority its equivalent to Australia's ABLEC, is investigating ticket
(01:54):
Master's dynamic pricing. The feature adjust ticket prices based on
how many pe people are trying to buy them. It's
set to consider whether this was legal and if prospective
buyers were given enough notice that dynamic pricing would be
in place. The CMA said it wants customers to submit
proof or photos of their purchasing experience to assist the investigation.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
The bus driver responsible for a crash that killed ten
people and injured twenty five others in the Hunter Valley
last year will face sentencing this week. Brett Andrew Butden
pleaded guilty to ten counts of dangerous driving causing death,
nine counts of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm and
sixteen counts of furious driving causing bodily harm. The families
(02:39):
and loved ones of the victims will be in caught
to deliver victim impact statements.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
In today's Good News. In a potential breakthrough for the
future of medical imaging, researchers in the US have discovered
a way to use food dye to see through skin.
A team at Stanford University tested a blend of chemicals
in including common food dye, on mice, which allowed scientists
to see the animal's organs and blood flow. The mixture
(03:07):
washed off with water, leaving the mice unharmed. If this
process works on humans, researchers said it could replace X
rays and other scans, and even make laser tattoo removal easier.
Lead scientist Guassong Hoong said quote, if we could just
look at what's going on under the skin instead of
cutting into it or using radiation to get a less
(03:28):
than clear look, we could change the way we see
the human body.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
So, Billy, in today's deep Dive, I know that you
want to explore this angle that we've seen in headlines,
and you and I have been speaking about a bit,
which is whether or not parents should be held criminally
responsible for their child's criminal actions. Before we explore that angle, though,
I did just want you to maybe take a step
back and lay out the facts as to why we're
actually talking about this story today.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
Yeah, So, on Wednesday last week, a fourteen year old
boy was arrested over a fatal school shooting in the
US state of Georgia. Now, authorities alleged that the fourteen
year old boy opened fire at his local high school,
and it's alleged that he killed two teachers and two
students before he surrendered two authorities. I think it's one
(04:21):
of the rare examples where the shooter is actually still alive,
and so he is in custody and he faced court
on Friday. Nine others were also injured in the shooting,
and at the time of recording, no motive has been identified.
We do know that he seemed to have this real
(04:41):
interest around mass shootings, but we don't know too much
more about that. Authorities are still investigating that. What we
do know is that it was the state of George's
deadliest school shooting in its history, and we also know,
according to analysis by The Washington Post, that the boy
is the youngest Mas school shooter in about twenty five
(05:05):
years in the US. Now, the fourteen year old was
charged with four counts of felony murder, and authorities have
announced that they have charged him as an adult, not
as a minor, which is allowed in the state of Georgia.
Now why we're talking about it today is that on
Thursday night, authorities held a press conference and they announced
(05:27):
that the father of the fourteen year old boy has
also been arrested and is facing his own charges in
relation to his son's actions. And you could really tell
during the press conference, which was, like I said, just
held two days after the mass shooting, just how raw
the devastation still was.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
We're heartbroken. A young person brought a gun into a school,
committed an evil act, and he took lives, and he
injured many other people, not only physically but mentally.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
And I mean, obviously the investigation into the shooter and
what motivated him and why he did what he did
is ongoing, So we might just park that there for
a second. But what I find so interesting is that
you mentioned the father has been arrested.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
Yeah, it goes around this idea that just because the
father didn't pull the trigger does that mean that he
can't be held legally liable for his son's actions?
Speaker 2 (06:25):
What has he been charged with? Because I imagine that
that's quite a complex legal area to explore.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
So he was arrested and charged with four counts of
involuntary manslaughterer, two counts of second degree murder, and eight
counts of cruelty to children.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Can you just step listeners through what those charges actually mean?
I mean, I know that we didn't get a whole
heap of information, but just in a general sense, what
do those mean?
Speaker 1 (06:52):
Yeah, the authorities did decline to explain the charges further. Well,
I'll tell you quickly what those different charges usually mean.
So involuntary manslaughter essentially means the illegal killing of someone
without malice and without intent, and then second degree murder
means the killing was unplanned or it was impulsive. Now,
(07:15):
the only thing that authorities did say in relation to
these charges is that the father allegedly knowingly allowed his
son to possess a weapon. And when I was doing
research for this, I saw that sources had spoken to
CNN who had said that the shooter's father actually bought
the gun that was used in the mass shooting. As
(07:36):
a holiday present for his son in December of twenty
twenty three. Now that's just what sources are saying. It
hasn't been confirmed by the authorities, but I think it
does kind of paint a picture of kind of the
environment that this boy was possibly living in.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
I also saw headlines about the fact that authorities seem
to have had prior contact with the father before this incident.
Can you just provide a bit more information there.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Yeah, so they had contact with the father and also
the boy. So last year, Colt Gray, that's the name
of the fourteen year old boy. He posted online a
comment that said, quote shoot up a middle school. And
so that was posted on discord under a pseudonym, a
username that wasn't his direct name, and that caused someone
(08:24):
who saw it to reach out to authorities to investigate
if that was a real threat. Now I should say
that at the time they didn't know if it was
definitely him. So authorities went to the boy's house and
they spoke to him. He was then thirteen years old,
and they also spoke to his father, and the boy
denied that it was him who posted that threat. Who
(08:45):
posted that comment, and at the time Colt's father also
told authorities that his son quote knows the seriousness of
weapons and what they can do and how to use
them and not use them. And that's according to a
transcript of the conversation that was obtained by The New
York Times. Investigators ultimately decided after that conversation with Colt
(09:06):
and his father that they couldn't conclusively prove that Colt
was behind the account that posted that threat, and so
they basically just left it at that.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
I mean, there's so much there, and I'm sure there's
so much that's going to be combed through to understand how,
you know, they got from there to the incident that
happened last week. But it's clear that the shooter's father
was already in some sort of conversation with authorities. As
you said, that didn't really go anywhere. But broadening out
(09:37):
from just this case, is there a precedent for a
parent actually being held legally liable for the actions of
their child.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
Yeah, So the Georgia Bureau of Investigation was actually asked
that exact question during their press conference on Thursday, and
they said that they weren't aware of any precedent for this,
but they hadn't looked into it. Clearly it wasn't a
priority at the time, but if we look elsewhere in
the country, there is precedent for this, and there's quite
recent precedent for this. So earlier this year in the
(10:08):
US state of Michigan, the parents of a teenager who
murdered four students at a school in twenty twenty one,
they were found guilty. So the parents were found guilty
of involuntary manslaughter and they were sentenced to at least
ten years in prison.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
I'm just clarifying voluntary manslaughter is the same charges that
this father is facing.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
Yeah, it's included in the slate of charges that the
father is facing, but he's also facing other ones as well. Now,
the names of these parents were James and Jennifer Crumbly,
and their guilty verdict represented the first time parents in
the US had been held criminally responsible for a mass
shooting by their child.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
I think that it's pretty astounding, given I think we
mentioned that we were above three hundred and fifty mass
shootings just this year alone, just in the US, that
it was only this year for the very first time,
that that precedent was set for a parent to be
held criminally responsible for the actions of their child. What
were the prosecutor's arguments in that specific case talking about
(11:11):
their James and Jennifer Crumbley.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Yeah, So the prosecutors argued that the parents had ignored
quite clear warning signs and that they also missed cries
for help from their son, who was quite open about
the fact that he was struggling with his mental health.
There was a lot of evidence about him drawing pictures
that said help me. So the prosecutors were saying that
(11:35):
they just completely ignored that. One of the prosecutors said
in their closing argument, referring to the dad here quote,
James Crumbly was presented with the easiest, most glaring opportunities
to prevent the deaths of these four students, and he
did nothing.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
They also said that the father had actually bought the
gun for his son as an early Christmas present for
him four days before the mass shooting occurred in twenty
twenty one.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
Almost eerie. How yeah, how similar some of the storylines
here are.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Yeah. I mean, the current case that we're talking about
is only allegations, so we can't say conclusively that there
are direct parallels, but just reading about it, you can't help.
But just think how similar these two cases do seem.
And the prosecutors also said that the parents failed to
secure the gun, so failed to put it in any
safe place that would have avoided their son using it
(12:28):
without their supervision. Now, that was the main focus from
the prosecutors on the father, that he had literally bought
the gun that his son used to kill four people,
and that he made no effort to prevent his son
from carrying out this dangerous crime. But for the mother
it was a little bit different. They presented a different
argument and different evidence for her. They provided evidence that
(12:51):
they said, suggested that she was negligent and detached as
a mother, and that, like I said before, she ignored
warning signs that prosecute you say, we're clearly there. And
in both cases, the prosecutors were successful in arguing that
the parents should be held legally liable for their actions
of their child, and that case has certainly set a
(13:14):
precedent for the country. It was a really historic decision
made by the jurors and it will be interesting to
see how it does set precedent for future cases.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
Yeah, I mean this as you have said, that seem
to be quite a few similarities in the cases, and
it'll be interesting to see what the criminal process looks
like from here. Clearly there is this I don't know
if movement is the right word, but there is this
effort to try and broaden the understanding of how and
why these mass shootings are occurring at the rate they are,
(13:46):
and that partly the role of parents is being looked
at and examined and coming under question. Are their arguments
against this logic? What is the other side of the
coin when it comes to who should be held criminally responsible?
Speaker 3 (14:02):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (14:02):
I looked into this and I read a few different
opinions from academics who explained why some could be against
this criminal justice approach, or not necessarily against it, but
maybe just cautious about maybe over relying on it. So
one opinion I read was just posing the question, you know,
where do you draw the line in holding one person
(14:23):
responsible for another person's actions.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
I mean, I think that's interesting because that would probably
fall down in this case when we're talking about a
fourteen year old. Yeah, I feel like that logic, can
I guess hold up when we're talking about an adult,
But a fourteen year old, I think it's different.
Speaker 1 (14:42):
Yeah, but I guess what this academic was saying that,
you know, if your child shop lists, for example, is
that something like now, because we have this president, is
that something that now you can hold the parents legally
responsible for a less severe crime. I guess it was
the argument there. Another article I read was by academic
Victoria Kane for Time magazine, and she was basically saying
(15:04):
that there isn't actually proof that going down this route
could actually reduce youth crime. So she said, quote, the
biggest problem with such laws is that they have never
been proven to prevent crime. Blaming individual parents for children's
crimes lets communities ignore more difficult and divisive tasks eliminating poverty,
(15:24):
curbing child abuse, providing mental health care, and limiting children's
access to guns. She also continued, quote, as Americans lean
on parental responsibility laws to prevent crime and exact retribution,
they should be careful that they aren't letting the broader
community off too easy.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
So so interesting. It reminds me. In your twelve in
legal studies, we were learning about the purposes of punishment,
and you know, one of them is retribution, which is
that you pay for your crimes. That there is punishment,
but another is rehabilitation, and another is deterrent. So it's
like each of these leavers is being pulled. And what
is actually happening broadly across society when this sort of
(16:05):
precedents are being made.
Speaker 1 (16:07):
Yeah, it's about, you know, do you pay for the
crime or do you try to address the source of
the crime, And both are super important. So that's those
who question it. But there are, of course many advocates
for this path, including President Joe Biden. He said last week,
you've got to hold parents accountable if they let their
child have access to these guns. So there are many
(16:29):
people who are for it. Obviously the prosecutors in the
cases that I have mentioned. President Joe Biden is for it,
but they did think it was worth mentioning those who
were questioning it.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
And I mean, just on an ending note, to have
the president of one of the most powerful countries in
the world say it's about parents being accountable for letting
their children have access to those guns, when perhaps on
the other end, people are arguing that nobody should have
access to those guns opens up a different can of worms,
and one that the US will continue to debate, I
think till the end of time. Thank you so much
(17:00):
for listening to today's episode of The Daily os and.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
Before we go, we are currently running a survey for
this podcast. We would love to hear any feedback you
have for us on what you like about the podcast,
what you think we could improve on. We are all
e is a link for that is in today's show notes.
Thank you so much for listening, and we will be
back again tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (17:24):
My name is Lily Madden and I'm a proud Dunda
Bungelung Kalgotin woman from Gadighol Country.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
The Daily oz acknowledges that this podcast is recorded on
the lands of the Gadighl people and pays respect to
all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island and nations. We pay
our respects to the first peoples of these countries, both
past and present.
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.