Fox’s Accused examines the responsibilities of parents and teens who shoot in a Fox series
School shootings by youths have risen frequently over the last quarter century, and the past five years reflect a substantially higher number of incidents, according to a recent article published by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
It seems challenging to find an avenue that might take us back to a simpler time, when the horrors of school shootings were the exception instead of the norm. In addition to charging the shooters themselves, it is also possible to charge their parents. The government claims that the deaths of the two students and two educators were caused by the son’s actions, and his father allowing him the gun.
His child was charged with four murder counts. As a lawyer and a writer, I always try to refrain from naming minors unless and until they are convicted.
Questions about the merits of charging a parent for a child’s crime, and whether that may be a valid tool for preemptively fighting school shootings, led me to Fox’s Accused, a gripping crime series set to start its second season in October. Each stand-alone installment is a fictional account created to craft a thought-provoking look at various forms of criminal liability.
The anthology series is based on a 2010 BBC show of the same name. The series has been on my radar for a while now, thanks to multiple reader recommendations. The first episode immediately caught my attention, as it echoed Colin Gray’s situation. The first installment immediately caught my attention, as it echoes Colin Gray’s situation.
‘Scott’s Story’
The episode was incredibly well-produced. The acting and cinematography are both excellent. His mother pulls him out of school instead of participating in assessments as part of his expulsion from school. His father, Dr. Scott Harmon a brain surgeon seems more concerned about his son’s underlying problems, while his wife implores her husband to give the son “space.”
The father watches old family home videos. In one of the recorded incidents, his daughter asks him why Devin doesn’t listen and suggests that “maybe he is broken …””. Other recorded instances show Devin putting animals in boxes and harming other children. He knows his boy lacks empathy, and he goes as far as to tell his wife that he thinks Devin is “dangerous.”
The episode alternates between the criminal process Harmon endures and the life experiences that led to the underlying knowledge upon which his criminal charges are partly based. Ultimately, the father finds himself stuck between the unconditional love of a parent and the fear that someone he cares so deeply for could cause so much pain to others.
The viewer is left asking, “When is it too early to intervene and to what extent?”
“Scott’s Story” was enjoyable from a dramatic and visual perspective. The courtroom scenes were not realistic, as they all focused on the father’s preliminary hearing. Either the production team didn’t seek the advice of an actual litigator, or they favored the emotional tug over the thrust of authenticity.
Nevertheless, that can’t detract from the cases the narrative mimics.
Other instances
Earlier this year, James and Jennifer Crumbley were both found guilty of involuntary manslaughter after their 15-year-old son, Ethan, was found guilty of killing four students in Michigan.
What separates the Crumbleys’ situation from the majority of school-shooter parents, though, is that they actually bought their son the pistol he used to murder the other students. Likewise, Colin Gray is alleged to have bought his son the AR-15-style rifle he allegedly used.
However, such a clear connection to the killing likely won’t be apparent in most parental liability cases. Adam Winkler is a constitutional law prof at the University of California at Los Angeles. He told Time magazine it’s rare for parents to face charges when their children are in possession of firearms and cause harm. With that in mind, and in light of the recent charges against Gray, will we see an influx of charges levied against the parents of school shooters?
All this brings me back to my initial question: Is charging parents for the school shooting deaths caused by their children even a valid tool in preemptively fighting these horrors?
Sadly, I don’t think it is.
Let’s consider the context surrounding parental liability cases. The prosecution’s theory in these types of matters seems to be that the parent either knew or should have known their child was a threat to themselves or others and that the parent did or didn’t do something that assisted the shooter in ultimately carrying out their scheme.
The Associated Press reported that the prosecutor in Gray’s case said he’s “not trying to send a message …
just trying to use the tools in
arsenal to prosecute people for the crimes they commit.”
Whether true or not, one can see how charging parents for their children’s violence could be used as a tool to try and deter the ever-growing trend of school shootings. If there was a simple solution, we would already have found it. Some have argued that banning or restricting assault weapons will reduce the number of mass shootings. However, statistics show that handguns account for most mass shootings. It’s not feasible to outlaw private firearm ownership, so we need to find a way to protect our children. Research shows that many of the handguns used to commit school shootings were stolen from family members. Even though I don’t agree with the idea that these cases will prevent shootings, there is no other option I can suggest. If there is a legal theory that could save more children, then it’s worth trying. His practice is devoted to state and federal criminal law. The study of law may not be for everyone, but its practice and procedures seem to permeate the pop culture at a growing rate. This column is about the intersection of law and pop culture in an attempt to separate the real from the ridiculous.
This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal–or the American Bar Association.[he’s]
