377
submitted 8 months ago by ickplant@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 31 points 8 months ago

I have a couple thoughts on this. First, if the adults are guilty and the courts accepted the argument that they neglected to give the child the help he needed, why is the child serving a life sentence? The article makes it sound like he wanted help and knew he needed it.

Also, I thought I read that the parents had not just left the weapon unsecured, but let him use it.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 48 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Because only the parents knew the worst parts, they bought him a gun, and then left it accessible.

Days later when called to the school over concern that he was showing signs of committing a mass shooting, the parents downplayed it and said their son should remain in school.

They didn't mention the gun, or ask the son about it. They didn't even go home to check.

We have this weird taboo over talking about guns. But when a kid shows these signs "do they have access to guns" should be one of the first questions asked.

[-] Arbiter@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

I mean, it’s a common question in these scenarios.

Nothing physically compels them to tell the truth, though.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

This...

This compels them to tell the truth

Because if they lie, and the worst happens, they go to prison

[-] teamevil@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Also his mother chose to get finger banged by the guy she was cheating with instead of helping her kid using the excuse, "she couldn't skip work" and then she skipped work.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 35 points 8 months ago

The kid needed help, and knew he needed help, but he still chose to go through with it instead of turning himself in.

The drawing on the math paper was a cry for help. He could have just as easily turned himself in, he did not.

It also doesn't help that:

a) Ethan gave his dad the money for the gun, and picked out that specific gun, when he was not old enough to own a gun.

b) Dad made a straw purchase for his son.

c) Mom posted to Instagram calling the gun her sons Christmas present.

https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/ethan-crumbley-says-he-gave-james-crumbley-money-to-buy-gun-used-in-oxford-high-school-shooting

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

I don’t think many kids know about their options though. He basically said “I asked my parents for help and they denied me, so I can’t get help.” To me, that suggests the kid thought he exhausted his options. An uneducated child is a system failure imo, not a child’s criminal act.

I’d also say that most people who are victims of suicide could have turned themselves in. Do we frown on them because they opted for violence?

[-] Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

The criminal justice system doesn't normally care how awful you are to yourself, its there to try and prevent you being awful to others. I believe you can still be charged with a crime in most of America if you survive a suicide attempt, but it isn't normally pursued because it doesn't really accomplish the things the state cares about...just like the state doesn't typically care about any psychiatric conditions you have unless they make you a danger to others.

I've got a few psychiatric conditions myself, and sometimes they contribute to me making bad choices that negatively impact the people I care about, but that doesn't absolve me of the responsibility I have to own up to my actions and make amends when I fuck up. I can't imagine anything I've dealt with leading me to the conclusion that killing a bunch of children or peers would be acceptable or desirable, but I also have the benefits of being properly medicated and having years of therapy under my belt that had given me a lot of great tools for dealing with my shit...but its still my shit and I'm responsible for it.

And yes, I do tend to frown on suicide. It's a final solution to a usually temporary problem, hurts EVERYONE who loves you, and it destroys your ability to do anything to make the world better.

[-] shasta@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago

Christians do because suicide is a sin

[-] teamevil@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Plus Mom chose to get finger banged by her lover instead of skipping work instead of helping her child during an emotional crisis. Even her boss said it would have been fine...she's gross.

[-] PineRune@lemmy.world 25 points 8 months ago

In USA, we have a Punitive Justice system, which is about punishing people for things they have or may have done. This has conditioned us to -want- people to be punished for perceived slights. This is opposed to a Rehabilitive Justice system that some European countries have, which is about not just helping the one who commited the crime to be a better person, but conditioning their citizens to not be the type of people that commit said crimes in the first place. That's all there is to it.

[-] damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world 23 points 8 months ago

That guy is a murderer and his father is an accessory to murder. Where’s the doubt?

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

The child asked for help and was neglected. Had he not committed a crime, wouldn’t we be calling him a victim?

[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago

He can still be a victim of bad parenting.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Sure, but then we’re talking about him as a victim still. So why is he spending his entire life in prison? Some are cheering the Gypsy Rose Blanchard release, but saying this kid is a murderer who deserves to live behind bars

[-] tryptaminev@feddit.de 10 points 8 months ago

He is spending his entire life in prison because the US justice system is based around deterrence and retaliation, not prevention and rehabilitation.

In most civilised countries it is impossible for underage offenders to get life. Forinstance in Germany the maximum prison sentence for a minor is ten years. Also youth prisons are focused much more on rehabilitation, social work and education, so the children have a chance at life after their sentence.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Right. Maybe I’m just conditioned by a decade on Reddit to be Socratic and not say things bluntly lol

[-] Zirconium@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

Especially since he was 15 at the time of shooting and was literally incapable of getting mental health treatment (if your parents dgaf it's basically impossible)

[-] jaybone@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

Are we actually arguing that he’s not guilty because he was neglected?

[-] PineRune@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

I wasn't trying to say he's not guilty in my original comment, but rather, if our country as a whole viewed crime and punishment differently, this kind of situation could be avoided altogether. Hypothetical, I know, but conditioning people to help those in need, in turn, reduces the rate at which people treat others poorly. If this kid was treated better in the first place, it could be said he would have never committed this crime, but now he has, and there's no coming back from that. With his punishment, he will be facing a life of psychological tortue, which won't make anything better.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 9 points 8 months ago

Even if he'd been found not competent to stand trial, he'd still be committed involuntarily. I don't know if this makes a difference.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

That ends once you’re stable though.

Edit: also, I don’t mean the kid should be free, but a life sentence for a neglected child seems unfair. The kid knew he needed help and couldn’t get it. Sounds like a victim too.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago

The kid killed 4 other kids. At 15 you know that isn't acceptable even if you need help.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

He was sick… he knew he was sick… he asked for help

[-] IamtheMorgz@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

And it's very messed up he didn't get that help. However, he's still responsible for his actions and needs to be held accountable for them. He knew it was wrong or he wouldn't have asked for help in the first place. 15 is old enough to understand what it means to kill someone.

If you're an alcoholic, and you're trying to get help, but you drive drunk on the way to therapy and kill someone, you're still responsible.

The sentiment that your mental health crisis somehow absolves you of your actions is dangerous for society. I'm pretty far left politically but I've been seeing this more and more from that side of the aisle and it's concerning. Arguably everyone who kills has something mentally wrong with them!

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

But the adult is able to get help on their own, the kid can’t.

[-] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

Because they don't know what to do or who to blame.

[-] acetanilide@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Going by the education I got from L&O, what happens in one trial doesn't really affect a separate trial, even for the same crime

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

Yes, from a strictly legal perspective. But if we take a step back and ask ourselves “who is responsible?” it’s a little different.

[-] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world -4 points 8 months ago

We live in a time in history (like all times previous and much of the future) where resources are scarce, both natural and otherwise. This falls into the "otherwise" category. Does the boy need help? Yes. He is a human, and so he deserves help like the rest of us. However, the resources diverted to helping him could help many more, instead. Many who have a much higher chance of rehabilitation. Triage isn't a nice thought, but in the mental health crisis we live in, it's the only thing we have. We have to help as many as we can, and that means some of the ones that need it the most get left behind. If there were infinite means of rehabilitation and assistance then he would get everything he needs, unfortunately that isn't the case, and so instead he gets the most we can offer, which is life in prison. There will be other options for help inside, though they are lacking. Perhaps through a societal and political change we can begin to better help him and those like him, but those changes have to happen before any work can be done. Railing against the system won't do any more good than banging your head against a wall. Right now, helping him isn't an option, though, if you work hard for it, you can help change that. Talk to your state politicians, send letters, raise awareness among your peers. If the change is important to you, then make it a priority in your life.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

The resources argument doesn’t really make sense. Locking someone up for life is more resources than a few years of rehabilitation.

[-] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

Different kind of resources. We aren't running out of wardens or jail space (well, yes we are, but no one cares, and they'll just stack more in anyway...), we don't have enough mental health professionals.

[-] GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.social -1 points 8 months ago
[-] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

I'll still be downvoted for it because I'm holding society accountable for society's problems, instead of letting everyone have it easy by blaming "the system."

[-] GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.social 0 points 8 months ago

Eh, don't give it any extra thought, the right people will read your comment regardless. (Hopefully)

this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2024
377 points (98.2% liked)

News

23311 readers
1111 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