INTRODUCTION
As many of you know, there was a rather important criminal case that just concluded in Michigan this week. The decision was celebrated and decried by people on both sides of the political aisle and there seem to be a whole crate load of worm cans that have been opened, both in the concepts of constitutional rights, as well as parental responsibility, judicial hypocrisy, and immunity status.
The case, was the trial of Jennifer Crumbley, a Michigan mother whose son committed a school shooting. She was tried for involuntary manslaughter and found guilty. And what I’d like to do is go through the facts of the case and the relevant Michigan law and then talk about what theological implications we can draw and then conclude.
FACTS
So, first, the facts of the case. And I will say, from the outset that I have not read the court transcripts and I’m not an expert on law. Nor am I claiming that anyone I cite has all their facts 100% correct. What I am saying is that I want to go through the facts, as presented to the Michigan jury, which they found proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jennifer Crumbley was guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
(A few places where I’ve sourced this information and which are good places to do some research on this topic are Washington Gun Law; Sidebar; Court TV).
Now, the MOST relevant facts are these:
1) The Crumbleys purchased a firearm for their minor son, Ethan, and did not adequately secure it.
2) The Crumbleys were told by their son, Ethan, that he was depressed and seeing demons.
3) The Crumbleys were told by their son, Ethan, that he wanted psychological help, to which Jennifer Crumbley laughed.
4) The Crumbleys were told by school officials that Ethan was drawing pictures of gun violence on his test papers.
5) Jennifer Crumbley attended a school meeting the day of the shooting where the school expressed concern about Ethan’s behavior and fascination with guns and ammo. Jennifer did not disclose to the school that Ethan owned a firearm.
6) Moreover, Jennifer Crumbley ended the meeting and refused to take Ethan home because she had to get back to work.
Now, here are some LESS relevant, but still important facts:
1) Jennifer Crumbley was actively having an affair and was often arranging meet-ups with other adulterers.
2) Jennifer Crumbley spent several nights a week at a barn to care for horses.
3) Jennifer Crumbley was often gone at night and rarely spent time with her son.
4) Jennifer Crumbley who claims Ethan’s firearm was her husband’s responsibility did not entrust anything of importance to her husband. According to her, her husband could not be trusted to get out of bed, hold a job, or cut the grass at the proper heighth.[1]
5) Jennifer Crumbley attempted to flee after learning about the charges against her.
6) Jennifer Crumbley repeatedly lied under oath.
And we could go on. The point is that the Prosecutors provided a lot of evidence that pretty clearly established 3 crucial facts. 1) Jennifer Crumbley (whether she knew her son was dangerous or not) COULD have known—whether she SHOULD have known was what the jury had to decide 2) Jennifer Crumbley was partially responsible for allowing her son to have access to a deadly weapon 3) Jennifer Crumbley was a negligent parent.
Her moral turpitude was significant in this case because the prosecution intended to show she was so busy living a seedy life and playing with her horsies, that she neglected her disturbed boy—and the Michigan jury believed the prosecutors.
RELEVANT LAW
The relevant Michigan law was explained to the jury and I will quickly share it with you here. And these can be found in the Model Criminal Jury Instructions from the Michigan Supreme Court. First, to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, the relevant portions of M JI 16.10 state:
(1) … To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2) First, that the defendant caused the death of [name deceased], that is, that [name deceased] died as a result of [state alleged act causing death].
[Use (3) when gross negligence is alleged:]
(3) Second, in doing the act that caused [name deceased]’s death, the defendant acted in a grossly negligent manner.
[(5) Third, that the defendant caused the death without lawful excuse or justification.]
And gross negligence is defined by M JI 16.18 as,
(1) Gross negligence means more than carelessness. It means willfully disregarding the results to others that might follow from an act or failure to act. In order to find that the defendant was grossly negligent, you must find each of the following three things beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2) First, that the defendant knew of the danger to another, that is, [he / she] knew there was a situation that required [him / her] to take ordinary care to avoid injuring another.
(3) Second, that the defendant could have avoided injuring another by using ordinary care.
(4) Third, that the defendant failed to use ordinary care to prevent injuring another when, to a reasonable person, it must have been apparent that the result was likely to be serious injury.
Now, I wasn’t on that jury and I haven’t heard all the evidence. But the Michigan jury did and they found that Jennifer Crumbley was grossly negligent and that her gross negligence caused the death of the people her son murdered. Michigan defines “caused” as being the result of an action.
Given the Michigan Law, it would seem to me that to meet those rather ambiguous criteria the prosecution would have had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Crumbley either knew or should have known that her son was a danger to others and that her gross negligence in not preventing him from harming others caused their deaths.
It isn’t enough to say that Jennifer Crumbley is a scummy person, or a bad parent, or a liar. None of those help her case, but she was not on trial for having low morals. She was on trial for her parental negligence causing the death of the murder victims.
I think it’s certainly clear that she bears SOME responsibility—but does she bear enough to say that her actions caused this crime? And does she bear enough responsibility to say that she caused the crime to such a degree that there is no limiting principle? Those are questions for juries and legal analysts—I’m just a theologian, and a mediocre one at that.
But this question of CAUSE is a very different question from RESPONSIBLE.
And, as I said, everyone seems to be talking about the ramifications of this case, but people seem to fail to reckon with the implications that this case has societally for our conceptualization of responsibility and how out of joint we truly are.
THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
Because while there are some who wish to say that it was unjust to try Ethan as an adult and then claim that his parents are also responsible—that this is hypocrisy. I don’t actually see it that way. If you have a friend whom you lend a gun to when you know or should know that he is unstable and is a danger to others, then you absolutely can be held responsible for that. I don’t think that the “he’s an adult” argument is as strong as people make it out to be.
And there are Christians, I’m sure, who want to point to Ezekiel 18:
20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.
But that dog won’t hunt. 1) because we have a clear example of where God holds people guilty for not restraining the sins of their sons: Eli the High Priest. 2) the Law of Moses is abundantly clear that negligence is not an excuse but, rather, makes you culpable—the famous example being the man who has a bull that’s dangerous and doesn’t keep it penned up. If that bull gores someone and kills them when the owner knew it was deadly then he would face the death penalty.
So, absolutely, if it could be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Crumbley was criminally negligent then she is legally and morally responsible for these deaths.
CONCLUSION
But this brings us to the most interesting side of this whole case which is that the broad definition of CAUSE that Michigan uses is, in fact, broad. And I would submit to you that the Michigan Model Jury Instructions belie the hypocrisy in our current legal system. Here’s what I mean.
If I, as a pastor, fail to intervene in a criminal behavior that I know is happening and someone is harmed I can be sued, or possibly found criminally liable. Being a pastor provides me with no immunity whatsoever. In fact, almost everyone can be found civilly or criminally liable for causing harm.
But some people are special. Some people have protections. Some people can cause harm and do so illegally and still be protected from prosecution. And that’s a problem. And it’s a problem for several reasons. Let me count the ways.
First, it is unjust for a society to deem that some people are simply above the law. Which is different, by the way, from the discussion about when it is best to overlook the law in the interests of compassion or common sense—jury nullification is real and real for a reason.
Second, it is contrary to the entire philosophy of American Constitutional Governance—or the governance of any free republic, that some people are above the law.
Third, it undermines confidence in the police, legal, and judicial systems for people to be above the law.
Fourth, it revictimizes victims and victimizes society.
Fifth, it robs people of just compensation for harms and frustrates justice.
Sixth, the frustration of justice is corrosive to the moral character of our society.
Seventh, the frustration of justice is an abomination against God and brings His wrath upon our society.
Eight, it incentivizes injustice.
Friends, let me ask you a question—do you really believe that a jury of your peers in Manhattan would not find the judges who let murderers back on the streets civilly responsible? Do you think a jury in Colorado would not find the judge who let the illegal immigrant drunk driver go free to kill a mother and her son civilly responsible?
My question friends, is, is America ever going to have the moral courage to hold these people accountable? Because here’s what I’m sick of hearing. I’m uttely sick and tired of hearing, “well they’re in government, just vote the bums out!” No.
No.
Not good enough.
Not even close to good enough.
Anyone who THINKS that letting a negligent official whose negligence has caused real harm get judged at the ballot box has never actually been harmed, and or is an idiot, and or is morally depraved.
I believe and I challenge anyone to find the flaw in my logic, that if a judge or prosecutor knows or should know that releasing a person into the public will lead to more crime, when it is their discretion to hold that person, then if the criminal commits more crimes then the prosecutor or judge should be liable. And I think we have seen cases so egregious lately that criminal liability is on the table, not simply civil liability.
If you let a person with a history of random violence out on the streets when you have the power to hold that person and he goes and hurts someone, you should receive whatever harm that criminal did. If they stole you should be fined; if they committed an assault, we should bring back floggings—that isn’t going to happen—so you should face jail-time equal to that which the criminal faces; if they commit murder you should face the death penalty.
Now, you may want to argue and say that it’s harsh, but I frankly do not see how it is unjust. In fact, I know it’s not unjust because God says that if a man won’t pen-up a bull who’s in the habit of goring and it kills someone then the bull’s owner must be put to death.
Now, hey, I get it. I know that with modern trials and the tension between habeas corpus and waiving speedy trials and all that that such policies could lead to the innocent being held unjustly.
I get that.
And that concerns me. And I do not want any public official to suffer penalties when he has acted in good faith. There are bad lawsuits brought against government officials.
But that’s why judges need to be men and women who are wise and show discretion and are good, decent, moral people who hate corruption and dishonest gain and know that they must answer to God. I never want to see a judge suffer who genuinely wishes to protect civil liberties and who had no way to know that a person awaiting trial would reoffend. No reasonable person wants that.
Aye, and there’s the rub. So much of our legal system is based upon judgment, discretion, wisdom, and reasonableness. But we are ever and anon becoming a society of morally depraved children. We are foolish, indiscrete, and unreasonable. And when that happens society breaks down.
And in case you’ve never read a history book, the breakdown of society is a bad thing.
Am I saying that a Christian interpretation of legal policy is to revoke qualified immunity? No. Not at all. I AM saying that THE Christian interpretation of the current application of qualified immunity is that it promotes injustice more than it prevents injustice.
In other words, the appropriate Christian theological read of our current policies concerning qualified immunity is that they do more harm than good. And, permit me to agree with my social justice and liberation theology friends on the Left, as we don’t always agree, but I agree with that that Christians SHOULD, in fact, be concerned with issues of justice, both personal and systemic.
Saying so doesn’t make you a communist, or anti-cop, or anti-American, or unchristian! Rather, seeking equal justice under law makes you every American, pro-law-and-order, conservative, and in line with the Biblical principles of justice.
Let’s start demanding qualified immunity reforms so that justice may be done.
[1] Yes, “heighth” is a word—it’s the original way to spell it, as adding “th” to an adjective was the standard way to nominalize it in English and some proto-English languages. See, weal-wealth, heal-health, wide-width, deep-depth, broad-breadth, strong-strength, (possibly) foul-filth, etc.