Following Kathleen Parker’s March 5 online op-ed, “The absurdity of imprisoning parents for their children’s crimes,” Post Opinions asked readers: Do you think parents should be held legally responsible for their children’s crimes, especially in cases of mass shootings? Here are some of the responses.
Colin Gray, whose son is accused of killing four people in a school shooting when he was 14, was convicted of second-degree murder for giving his son an AR-style rifle. Kathleen Parker decried the verdict: “Another prosecutor could find an irresistible application for other crimes, such as a teenage drunk driver who kills a pedestrian. What if the parent knew the teen was an occasional drinker but gave him a car anyway? Is the parent responsible for the death?”
Though the father did not pull the trigger, his actions, or lack thereof, place him solidly into the category of an accessory to a crime. Treat these folks as you would a getaway driver in a bank heist who doesn’t actually kill people but bears some responsibility when the heist goes wrong and innocents are murdered.
David Mabry, Littleton, Colorado
If this child tried to purchase an AR-style rifle on his own, it would be illegal. By extension, the father gifting this weapon to a young teen is no different than gifting him a car when he has no legal right to drive and then kills a pedestrian. The jury got it right.
William Carskadon, Onalaska, Wisconsin
This child was abused, bullied, tormented, forgotten, discarded, etc., and appears to have been failed multiple times by multiple support centers besides his own parents. Let his father’s conviction be a warning to all of the negligent parents out there who unleash traumatized, damaged children on the rest of us.
Kathleen Parker was right to ask why other adults weren’t charged. The mother should also be scrutinized, as well as the support centers that failed to act despite the countless warnings they received. Each and every one should face the community for what they did, or maybe couldn’t be bothered to do.
But Parker’s point about other children from similar circumstances not committing terrible acts fell flat. There are so many unknowns as to why one did and the others didn’t that we could go on for years. Making the argument that the abusive parent shouldn’t be liable because only one kid caused a tragedy makes as much sense as a drunk driver dodging responsibility because they killed only one person in the 250 times they drove drunk.
Sara Hardesty, Portland, Oregon
Gun ownership is a right that comes with a lot of responsibility: securing the weapon and ensuring that users are well trained and, most of all, of legal age to own the weapon. Giving a teenager a weapon like this is like giving a 14-year-old the keys to the sports car thinking that if they can drive the riding lawnmower, they can drive the Porsche. Every time I read about a child showing up to school with a loaded weapon, my immediate thought is “the parents are placing folks in danger.”
Malcolm Wilson, Silver Spring
If a parent gives a child a kitchen knife to cut up an onion for dinner, say, and that child uses the knife to commit murder, that’s one thing. The difference is that the knife is intended as a tool in cooking, whereas an AR-style rifle is to kill, and kill rapidly. It has no other uses.
James Tsui, Providence, Rhode Island
Take parenting out of the equation: Let’s say that I, as a complete stranger, go out and find a troubled 13-year-old, who the police think might be planning a mass shooting, and I hand him a loaded gun and walk away. When that kid later shoots up his school, am I culpable? Yes, of course I am.
Creating a child that badly damaged is reprehensible.
Arming them is criminal.
Troy Snell, Honolulu
Why did Kathleen Parker tie the issue of parents’ legal culpability to the falling birth rate? People factoring whether they can be held liable for terrible acts committed by their children, facilitated by their own neglect and abuse, into the calculus of whether to have kids are not the kinds of people we should encourage to become parents.
Becca Foster, Frederick, Maryland
We live in an age in which taking responsibility has become the exception rather than the norm. Mental illness, bad childhood, bullying at school, etc., are now excuses for murder and mayhem. Colin Gray deserved to be convicted.
When I was a kid, many years ago, my mother gave me a chance to understand the meaning of responsibility. After I stole something from the dime store, she marched me back to the store, asked for the manager, and had me return the item to him and apologize. A small matter but one of consequence. Let that father “man up” and not find excuses for handing his son the means of inflicting terrible harm. And let that kid not find excuses for what he did.
Charles Walton, Takoma Park
What’s the difference between blackface and drag?
The March 29 editorial “Ohio’s drag on free speech” gave an eye roll to the notion that there’s anything “sinister” about “men in wigs and sequined dresses.” I’m gay, so I have a right to speak on this, since people think of drag as a gay thing. But it isn’t. It’s a trans thing.
To the best of my knowledge, blackface is not outlawed in this country, although it is reprehensible. Drag is what I call “womanface.” It is clearly discriminatory against women, making them look like clowns. It is an exhibition of misogyny by men who think they like women but sure don’t act like it.
Whatever it is, it is protected speech. What isn’t clear is how much power a state has to protect children. I say: Drag that includes the portrayal of excessively huge breasts and other faked body parts, as well as undergarments, may be restricted to adults only.
Caleb Murdock, Warren, Rhode Island
Ohio state Rep. Angela King (R) is in effect proposing the illegality of Kabuki theater, classical Shakespearean theater, acts like Milton Berle’s, and the performances seen in the movies “Some Like It Hot,” “Tootsie” and “Mrs. Doubtfire.” RIP Dame Edna.
About the legality of women wearing jackets and four-in-hand neckties, I can only guess.
George Hoskin, Burtonsville
In her April 4 Style column, “Photos of Byron Noem depict a lonely person,” Monica Hesse wrote about how the husband of former homeland security secretary Kristi L. Noem “had been linked to a fetish known as ‘bimbofication,’ where participants transform themselves into exaggerated Barbie dolls with massive breasts.” Maybe by posting photos of his “bimbofied” self, Byron Noem is simply poking fun at the establishment that ousted his wife. No matter his reason, he is a private individual, not a public figure. Explore topics that are newsworthy. Leave him alone.
Harmon Biddle, Washington
Post Opinions wants to know: Are you in a relationship with someone who holds different religious beliefs? If so, how do you make it work? Any upsides or downsides? Send us your response, and it might be published as a letter to the editor. wapo.st/house_of_worship
The post Should parents be punished for their children’s crimes? appeared first on Washington Post.
