You could
say humanity is good at dreaming up new evils. But I find that, more often
than not, what we see is example after example of humanity returning to ancient
evils. Here is an example of an old evil being revived,
“Just a few hours later, Ethan pulled a handgun from his
backpack and shot four of his classmates dead, while wounding six others and a
teacher.
The gun was the 9mm Sig Sauer that his father had purchased
with him just four days earlier, and which his mother had him practice using at
a shooting range.
Ethan is now serving a life sentence in prison after he
pleaded guilty to terrorism and first-degree murder in December.
Jurors have also convicted his mother, Jennifer Crumbley, of
four involuntary manslaughter charges in what is regarded as the first US
prosecution of a parent in connection to a mass school shooting by their child.
Her husband, James Crumbley, was also charged with
involuntary manslaughter and is set to stand trial next month.
So what ramifications will this landmark ruling have? Could
it pave the way for other parents to be held responsible for their child's
crimes? We have spoken to an American legal expert to find out…
…Even though Jennifer Crumbley did not pull the trigger, she
was held responsible for not safely securing the gun and ammunition at home, as
well as failing to seek support for her son's mental health.
Prosecutors said the 45-year-old mother had a duty under
Michigan law to prevent her teenage son from harming others.”[1]
This is a
profoundly unjust verdict. Punishing the parents for the crime of their son is
inherently evil. There is perhaps a just case in some situations for punishing
the parents for crimes that they committed which enabled the crime of their
child (in this case no securing the gun), but they should not be held legally
accountable for a crime that is committed by their son or daughter.
The
scriptures speak to this principle very clearly:
“1 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “What do you mean by
repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, ‘The fathers have eaten
sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge’? 3 As I live, declares
the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. 4 Behold,
all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is
mine: the soul who sins shall die.
5 “If a man is righteous and does what is just and right— 6
if he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the
house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor's wife or approach a woman in her
time of menstrual impurity, 7 does not oppress anyone, but restores to the
debtor his pledge, commits no robbery, gives his bread to the hungry and covers
the naked with a garment, 8 does not lend at interest or take any profit,
withholds his hand from injustice, executes true justice between man and man, 9
walks in my statutes, and keeps my rules by acting faithfully—he is righteous;
he shall surely live, declares the Lord God.
10 “If he fathers a son who is violent, a shedder of blood,
who does any of these things 11 (though he himself did none of these things),
who even eats upon the mountains, defiles his neighbor's wife, 12 oppresses the
poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore the pledge, lifts up his eyes
to the idols, commits abomination, 13 lends at interest, and takes profit;
shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominations; he
shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself" (Ezek. 18:1-13).
The soul who
sins shall die. This is a foundational principle of biblical and western
justice. Set aside for now the discussion of the injustice of not sentencing to
death a person who has committed murder, the Bible is very clear that a parent
is not legally responsible for their child’s violent act and the child is not
responsible for their father’s – or indeed mother’s – violent act. The soul who
sins shall die.
This is an
important principle of biblical and practical justice. The one who has control
over their own actions is the one who is responsible. Of course, it is
different if you find out that the parents planned the crime with their son and
then sent him out to commit it, then they are accessories to the crime. But
teaching your son to shoot is not the same as teaching him to shoot in the act
of a crime. This should be especially true in the United States where
self-defence rules and laws around gun ownership are far more supported by
their culture and law. But put aside gun crime for now, can you see how this
sort of principle could be expanded on? Which is what lawyers are very good at
doing.
If a parent
teaches their son or daughter to drive, and then that child steals the car to
run someone over with it, deliberately. How is the parent responsible? Teaching
your son or daughter to drive is an important aspect of being a parent. It is
both a socially acceptable norm and legal, if done at the right age and in the
right way. Where does a person’s personal responsibility end and another person's begin? This is a murky way to approach the law,
and it is easy to see how this could end up in incredible injustice.
This does
not mean that a parent has no culpability for the wicked actions of their child; as the Proverbs say, “A foolish son is a grief to his father and bitterness to
her who bore him” (Prov. 17:25). A parent who has a wicked child will have
bitterness. This bitterness is punishment enough. There is a moral sense in
which they will also be held accountable to God for their mistakes. But God is
clear that you should not punish a son for his father’s crime or vice-versa.
One of the
problems that happens in our world is often those with the power of the law, that
is judges, lawyers, politicians, etc, will see a problem in their society, and
they will seek to push the boundaries of the law to try and address the
problem. But they end up instead corrupting the whole process of justice as a
result, because they extend the law beyond the extent of reasonable justice.
You saw this with prohibition, you see this with three strikes and you are out
laws, and so many other examples. One of the reasons that we have laws in the
Scriptures and in practice to only punish the person who committed the crime,
is because it is very easy for a vengeful person to think of all the reasons in
the world why that criminal’s parents, wife, husband, son or friends should
also be responsible. To create such resources in the law to actually follow
through on this bends the application of law from proper vengeance to unjust
revenge.
This greatly
expands the bounds of the law, as the article notes, “Professor of law at the
University of Michigan Ekow Yankah says Jennifer Crumbley's trial sets a
"contentious" precedent for holding parents accountable for their
child's wrongdoings. "Now you've given prosecutors a new tool," he
says.”[2]
A tool which he always asserts could have expansive negative consequences.
It is easy
to be angry at a crime like this and cheer the “drop-kick parents” of a school
shooter being punished. But whatever mistakes they made they are not the
shooter, and once a pandora’s box like this is open parents will be held
accountable for all kinds of other actions of their children. We are now
entering into the realm of collective punishment.
It does not
surprise me that a pagan idea like collective punishment is being revisited by
the modern United States. Christianity is a religion with a strong sense of
justice, but it is a clearly defined justice designed to restrain our impulses
for things like revenge and payback. You might want to blame the extended
social circle or family of someone who commits a heinous crime, but a just law
punishes only the person who committed the crime, because our sense of payback
can just grow too strong and overcome reason. Also, once you take away that
kind of boundary, the law just becomes a tool that you wield however you can
find a way to wield it. That is a scary world for anyone to live in. It is a
world where those who want to seek to do harm will make sure they get into
positions of power where they can do so, with the full force of the legal
system behind them. This results in undermining law and order itself.
For some
time now westerners have been seeking to shake off what they see as “the
shackles of a biblical worldview” but now we are starting to see just how far
reaching these ramifications can be. This is the world unbelievers have been
working for, but they know not what they ask for…though it is becoming clearer
how horrible a post-Christian society can actually become.
List of References
[1]
Audrey Courty 2024, “The Michigan school shooter's mother Jennifer Crumbley was
convicted of manslaughter. Could the landmark ruling set a legal precedent?” ABC
News (AU), https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/the-michigan-school-shooter-s-mother-jennifer-crumbley-was-convicted-of-manslaughter-could-the-landmark-ruling-set-a-legal-precedent/ar-BB1hTxN7?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=a008f323f285499aa149d532d3f783f6&ei=19
[2] Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment