Is it a crime to raise a killer?

[Three and Done]

Anthony Pasquale's 12 year old daughter Autumn was murdered by a 15 year old neighbor. He is now suing the parents of the boy that murdered her, and is proposing that New Jersey adopt a law (named after Autumn) that would hold "abusive or neglectful parents" accountable if their children commit crimes.

Justin was exposed to domestic violence and had a host of mental health issues and disabilities.

This piece discusses the situation fairly well:

http://news.yahoo.com/is-it-a-crime-to- ... 58283.html

It's an extremely thought provoking subject.

Are parents responsible?

[polecat]

Eh, idk.

Yes, child abuse and neglect can essentially rewire the brain and cause lifelong damage. But most kids who have abusive or neglectful parents grow up into functional, decent members of society. Some of those kids don't. Most kids with close, loving parents grow up into functional, decent members of society. Some of those kids don't.

It's not so easy (or direct) as crappy parent = crappy kid or good parent = good kid. The world just doesn't work like that.

That said, in this particular case, it sounds like the parents have at least some culpability for what happened. I wouldn't go so far as to say criminal liability (as "it is a crime?" suggests), but I do think that a lawsuit with punitive damages is appropriate. Let the jury sort it out.

[ILoveJellybeans]

It isn't a crime to be the parent of someone who did terrible things, but it is a crime to do terrible things to/around a child that may lead them to being criminals, such as abusing or neglecting them, encouraging them to commit crimes, committing crimes in front of them or exposing them to violence.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Eh, idk.

Yes, child abuse and neglect can essentially rewire the brain and cause lifelong damage. But most kids who have abusive or neglectful parents grow up into functional, decent members of society. Some of those kids don't. Most kids with close, loving parents grow up into functional, decent members of society. Some of those kids don't.

It's not so easy (or direct) as crappy parent = crappy kid or good parent = good kid. The world just doesn't work like that.

That said, in this particular case, it sounds like the parents have at least some culpability for what happened. I wouldn't go so far as to say criminal liability (as "it is a crime?" suggests), but I do think that a lawsuit with punitive damages is appropriate. Let the jury sort it out.

It's easier to see general patterns in cases than it is to prove that X caused Y in a particular case.

Some of my particularly nasty cases have also made me question whether there are genetic factors. I've had cases where dad is a psychopath and the child has already had labels of Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Conduct Disorder - but dad hasn't been in contact with the child and the mother is perfectly lovely but overwhelmed. [We also saw this a bit with my crazy grandma. Great-grandma was a great woman, who fled her abusive husband while pregnant with grandma. Grandma, despite being raised by her saint of a mother, has aspects which are both crazy and abusive (I remember her constantly calling my mother fat and stupid and the worst daughter - despite the fact that mom is actually really petite, holds a Masters of Education, and has devoted countless hours to her mother, and she was diagnosed with both a personality disorder and bipolar disorder). We met her half-sister once, and she had many of the same odd behaviors - even though they never lived together and had nothing to do with one another.]

ETA: I read the article, and it sounds like that's part of the case here. You can get PTSD from witnessing abuse, but some of his other issues could have been things that he was born with. His parents had split 7 years prior to the crime.

I can't know Anthony Pasquale's pain, but I do know that this is a counter-productive way to deal with it. Yes, there should be focus on parenting and domestic violence and how children are affected by what they see and how we identify and treat youth at risk. These are all important issues. Suing Anita or making her into a criminal doesn't address that. Focus on prevention and treating kids properly from the get-go, not pinning blame on the mom after the fact.

[Three and Done]

How would culpability be determined? What standards could be applied? In this case, is the father more responsible than the mother?

What about genetics? Ted Bundy and Dennis Rader, two of the most prolific and sadisitic serial killers in recent memory both had "normal" childhoods.

In my mind, there are many factors to consider in this debate. I don't think it would be possible to use one narrow definition in every case.

[chaotic life]

I'm really uncomfortable with this concept for a lot of reasons.

First, how do you prove poor parenting is causative to the behaviors of the child? In a situation where a child was removed from a biological family due to severe abuse and/or neglect and another family--foster or adoptive stepped in but were unsuccessful in helping the child achieve healing, will that family now be found negligent for the legacy left by the biological family? I can especially see this in highly conservative, religious families who might have solid intentions and provide a loving and stable home but have religious underpinnings that failed to prompt them to seek outside professional services. Its not that I agree with not getting a hurting child professional therapeutic services. I just see that failure as FAR different than being the original abuser that caused the trauma to the child in the first place. I'm not sure a law like this would make that distinction.

Second, I am really and truly uncomfortable with attempting to blame parents for the choices a teenager or adult makes. I tell at risk kids all the time that at the end of the day, they are not responsible for the trauma and crap they endured at the hands of poor parents as a child. However, they are 100% responsible for the poor choices THEY make in their own lives. This law would completely negate that.

Third, I see this as an unmitigated disaster for parents of mentally ill children. Could Adam Lanza's father be held culpable for his killing spree? His father and his mother fought for him to the best of their ability to do so and still failed to stop him. Would Elliot Roger's parents be held culpable? Evidence indicates that they went further than the Lanza parents in trying to get help and services for their son. Yet, a spree killer would absolutely be indicative of a failure on their parts to have stopped him, despite the fact that his therapist and mother notified the police a short period of time before he went on his rampage and it was the police who failed to investigate sufficient to see he was truly the danger his mother and therapist claimed he was.

The most intelligent and wealthy parents can be completely confounded and exhausted by the hodge podge or mental health services, or lack thereof, that exist for adolescents in this country. If we're going to start holding parents culpable for their children's crimes if they cannot get this patchwork quilt to yield we'll increase those trying to remove those children from their custody in order to remove themselves from the liability that those children can create. It's bad enough for parents of children with mental health issues in this nation NOW. I think opening the door for something like this would cause an unmitigated disaster in the system that already fails to function for most adolescents already struggling and their exhausted and demoralized families who continue to fight for help for them as it is.

There is no doubt that it is a tremendous tragedy when a child takes the life of another person. However, at some point we have to hold an adolescent responsible for their own behaviors and choices. Parents can already be held responsible for abuse and neglect against their children. I don't think we need to add this avenue to that existing option.

[Mama Mia]

Agree completely with other posters who have stated serious concerns with this.

And would add, who gets to decide what is abusive and what is neglectful? You could have one set of lawmakers saying children raised in Pearl like situations were abused and the parents were guilty -- but you could just as easily have a judge in some areas saying they kid wasn't beaten enough, and so are guilty.

[snarktastic]

What are parents supposed to do if their child is born a psychopath? What is a small, overworked single mum to do if her hulking teenage son falls in with a bad crowd?

If you allowed parents to be held accountable for the actions of their kids it would be the last straw for so many struggling parents and you'd have a tidalwave of mums and dads passing their difficult kids onto the state to deal with.

[Trynn]

Well, another issue is: where do you draw the line? One persons definition of a use varies sometimes. Fundies, for example, think public school is abuse and neglect. Most of us know better.

I'm just not comfortable with parents being charged with the actions of, especially adult, offspring, because who decides these boundaries?

[Antimony]

No. Nope. No. It is a crime to abuse your child but that is separate from being culpable for your child's homicides. There is the murder of James Bulger, for example, which is bizarre and sad and the children were so young but 10 year old murderers? It seems impossible to me to hold a parent responsible. It isnt like Dexter.

Also, Ted Kaczynski. His brother helped catch him. They presumably had similar childhoods (and plenty of access to education as well) and it still happened that one sibling was a serial killer and the other clearly not.

The parents of Elliot Rodger also have other well adjusted children. I don't know if this law only wants to hold parents responsible if the murderer is a child but I think there is plenty of counter evidence that says even if do well, or do it all right, people can still go wrong. Sociopathy/psychopathy, while misunderstood, is real and it probably has a genetic component we can't find yet. My father is a sociopath and it is one of the reasons I am terrified of having my own biological children.

[DGayle]

New Jersey adopt a law (named after Autumn) that would hold "abusive or neglectful parents" accountable if their children commit crimes.

I do think parents should be on the hook for what their underage children do while in their custody. If my daughters break a neighbor's window, I have to pay to fix it. Why shouldn't I be responsible if my parenting via abuse or neglect resulted in one of them, instead of smashing a window, smashed someone's head in? If you can't control your kid, get help. That should be part of this. Hold parents responsible, and also make sure that help is available to parents who are struggling to control their kids. Too often, parents these days are lazy and neglectful, and ask where society went wrong when their own kids go off committing crimes.

[DGayle]

how do you prove poor parenting is causative to the behaviors of the child?

This isn't really what matters. If you realize your kid has a pattern of behavior that is harmful or puts others at risk, and don't take action, you, as the responsible party, should be on the hook. Before enacting laws putting parents on the hook, we do need a system in place to make sure parents who are struggling have access to help, and this access to help shouldn't even look at family income. If the help is available and parents don't seek it for their underage kids, then they should face penalties, regardless of whether or not there's abuse in the home. If I have a psychotic child and don't get help for whatever reason, and my child kills yours, I damned well should be in the hook for failing to attempting to seek help.

[OkToBeTakei]

Name a serial killers parents? Blame them?

From my demographic I'm thinking Peter Sutcliffe, I'm thinking the Moor's murderers. All horrific cases. Involving sex and child murders.

My issue with this train of thought is the 'blame' culture. There always has to be a 'blame.' It is so hard for decent people to deal with inhumanity that it is easier to blame. Society today wants to analyse and blame and look for recompense whether that be financially or morally, sometimes you just get nasty bastards in the world. I don't think folks want to see that. There has to be a label or a reason which allows people to feel more comfortable.

Sometimes there is not one.

[Three and Done]

This isn't really what matters. If you realize your kid has a pattern of behavior that is harmful or puts others at risk, and don't take action, you, as the responsible party, should be on the hook. Before enacting laws putting parents on the hook, we do need a system in place to make sure parents who are struggling have access to help, and this access to help shouldn't even look at family income. If the help is available and parents don't seek it for their underage kids, then they should face penalties, regardless of whether or not there's abuse in the home. If I have a psychotic child and don't get help for whatever reason, and my child kills yours, I damned well should be in the hook for failing to attempting to seek help.

In the United States, mental health care can be VERY difficult to obtain or afford. Chaotic life states it very well in her post:

"The most intelligent and wealthy parents can be completely confounded and exhausted by the hodge podge or mental health services, or lack thereof, that exist for adolescents in this country. If we're going to start holding parents culpable for their children's crimes if they cannot get this patchwork quilt to yield we'll increase those trying to remove those children from their custody in order to remove themselves from the liability that those children can create. It's bad enough for parents of children with mental health issues in this nation NOW. I think opening the door for something like this would cause an unmitigated disaster in the system that already fails to function for most adolescents already struggling and their exhausted and demoralized families who continue to fight for help for them as it is."

[Mama Mia]

This isn't really what matters. If you realize your kid has a pattern of behavior that is harmful or puts others at risk, and don't take action, you, as the responsible party, should be on the hook. Before enacting laws putting parents on the hook, we do need a system in place to make sure parents who are struggling have access to help, and this access to help shouldn't even look at family income. If the help is available and parents don't seek it for their underage kids, then they should face penalties, regardless of whether or not there's abuse in the home. If I have a psychotic child and don't get help for whatever reason, and my child kills yours, I damned well should be in the hook for failing to attempting to seek help.

But it sounds like you're assuming this help will be effective. If you get something as extreme as a child who kills people -- the available help may not be enough to actually control him. Or you could go to get him help and the medication they try is what triggers the psychotic break. Or he may have a psychotic break and go on a killing spree in such a short time period that there wasn't even time to get help. Or he hides that the voices are telling him to do bad things-- so you don't even know. Or he's an actual sociopath and charms all the professionals into thinking he's fine and he's released from care.

And what is the diving line of when a parent is required to get help? Is it the first time the kid gets into a fight with a peer? What if it was that first altercation that resulted in death due to the kid cracking his head on a rock? There are so many "ifs" when it comes to mental health.

[BrownieMomma]

What I read about this is that the defense was the kid learned this behavior from his abusive father, who would put his hands around the mother's neck.

So this kid murders an innocent child and it's excusable because his father taught him how to do by example... it's not his own fault, so then is it not the father's fault?

[Savoring Samsara]

How would culpability be determined? What standards could be applied? In this case, is the father more responsible than the mother?

What about genetics? Ted Bundy and Dennis Rader, two of the most prolific and sadisitic serial killers in recent memory both had "normal" childhoods.

In my mind, there are many factors to consider in this debate. I don't think it would be possible to use one narrow definition in every case.

Same with Jeffrey Dahmer. His father wrote a book about his upbringing that is absolutely heartbreaking to read.

[Three and Done]

What I read about this is that the defense was the kid learned this behavior from his abusive father, who would put his hands around the mother's neck.

So this kid murders an innocent child and it's excusable because his father taught him how to do by example... it's not his own fault, so then is it not the father's fault?

I don't think anyone is saying it's not the kid's fault. The question we are debating is how responsible is a parent when their child murders someone, and how would that responsibility be determined.

In this particular case, the murderer was exposed to domestic violence, which is the victim's father's basis for his initiative.

Here is a different situation that is relevant to this discussion:

In 1992, a county over from where I live, a 14 year old girl named April Dell'Olio stabbed her boyfriend David Eccleston to death when he tried to break up with her. She stabbed him 17 times. There was no suggestion that April was mistreated in any way by her parents, and she claimed "temporary" insanity during the trial. (Basically stating she had a psychotic break.)

Should April's parents have been held accountable?

[fun2beme]

My first thought was - that poor, poor man, visiting his daughter's grave three times per day for the past few years. Heart-breaking.

I agree with the prior poster who said that this isn't the way to deal with grief. He's stuck in the anger phase, but drawing things out with a lawsuit is just prolonging everything (not that I'm saying you can ever get over the death of a child). But I think the boy's lawyer totally set herself up for this with her comments about how he learned this behavior from watching his own parents.

Parental culpability? It's a tricky one. Decent people have been known to raise monsters, people with horrible upbringings manage to turn out OK. Some parents get help for their kids and it helps, sometimes it doesn't. Some parents are in total denial about what their kids are doing.

However, I found myself making parallels with this case to the Newtown shootings. While reading this article made me uneasy, I did - and still do -firmly believe that Adam Lanza's mom was responsible, in large part, for what happened. So my quandary is, how can I personally justify blaming Adam Lanza's mom but be undecided about the mom in this article? Too many gray areas for me in mulling over this whole thing.

[BrownieMomma]

I don't think anyone is saying it's not the kid's fault. The question we are debating is how responsible is a parent when their child murders someone, and how would that responsibility be determined.

In this particular case, the murderer was exposed to domestic violence, which is the victim's father's basis for his initiative.

Here is a different situation that is relevant to this discussion:

In 1992, a county over from where I live, a 14 year old girl named April Dell'Olio stabbed her boyfriend David Eccleston to death when he tried to break up with her. She stabbed him 17 times. There was no suggestion that April was mistreated in any way by her parents, and she claimed "temporary" insanity during the trial. (Basically stating she had a psychotic break.)

Should April's parents have been held accountable?

I guess if one of April's parents had a habit of knifing people? Or waving a knife around to get their own way?

The defense is that the boy LEARNED this behavior from his father. Now I don't know this at all but my guess would be that April didn't learn this behavior from her parents.

Two fathers in this thread dumped their kid on the mom and basically walked away. Adam Lanza's father was very busy with work and a new bride. Elliott Rodgers father apparently didn't pay much attention to his kid either, the story was that Elliott was often left in the care of his stepmother.

My husband ditched out on our two kids too. You bet I'm defensive about the blame being placed on the mother when the father has an equal responsibility to stick around and parent. Maybe neglecting your parental responsibilities should indeed be a crime.

Oh I looked up April Dell'Olio. This happened in 1992. There are allegations that the 17yo abused her. The jury sided with her, and her defense was temporary insanity.

I will say, it also says the teens were having sex, drank, smoked pot. Those teens or teens in general in that small town? Can't tell from the wording of the article I read. It does say April and David exchanged explicit love letters.

So maybe April didn't learn any murderous, violent behaviors from her parents. But maybe her parents were neglectful. Maybe they should have been keeping their young 14yo from being in such a relationship. So maybe, mhmm just maybe, her parents should have been accountable... but if he was abusing her... this defense has been successfully used in other abuse situations, although usually the victim is defending themselves rather than harming the abuser who is leaving the relationship.

Autumn, however, did nothing wrong. Just too trusting.

[fun2beme]

I guess if one of April's parents had a habit of knifing people? Or waving a knife around to get their own way?

The defense is that the boy LEARNED this behavior from his father. Now I don't know this at all but my guess would be that April didn't learn this behavior from her parents.

Two fathers in this thread dumped their kid on the mom and basically walked away. Adam Lanza's father was very busy with work and a new bride. Elliott Rodgers father apparently didn't pay much attention to his kid either, the story was that Elliott was often left in the care of his stepmother.

My husband ditched out on our two kids too. You bet I'm defensive about the blame being placed on the mother when the father has an equal responsibility to stick around and parent. Maybe neglecting your parental responsibilities should indeed be a crime.

Oh I looked up April Dell'Olio. This happened in 1992. There are allegations that the 17yo abused her. The jury sided with her, and her defense was temporary insanity.

I will say, it also says the teens were having sex, drank, smoked pot. Those teens or teens in general in that small town? Can't tell from the wording of the article I read. It does say April and David exchanged explicit love letters.

So maybe April didn't learn any murderous, violent behaviors from her parents. But maybe her parents were neglectful. Maybe they should have been keeping their young 14yo from being in such a relationship. So maybe, mhmm just maybe, her parents should have been accountable... but if he was abusing her... this defense has been successfully used in other abuse situations, although usually the victim is defending themselves rather than harming the abuser who is leaving the relationship.

Autumn, however, did nothing wrong. Just too trusting.

Just to clarify - yes, I think Adam Lanza's father is very culpable for abandoning his obviously mentally ill son. However, my blame for the mother is because she's the one who taught her son to shoot and had guns around the house. Yes, perhaps if the father was in the picture, this would not have happened but the bottom line is, it did happen and those sweet, innocent children and their teachers paid for it. And sadly, so did his mom.

[VaSportsMom]

I followed this case from the day Autumn went missing to long after she was found (Web Sleuths). The killer's mother was devastated, more so for Autumn's family than her own. She survived horrible domestic violence and was working her ass off to provide for her boys. TBH, Autumn was living in a situation that was more questionable.

[Sundaymorning]

It isn't a crime to be the parent of someone who did terrible things, but it is a crime to do terrible things to/around a child that may lead them to being criminals, such as abusing or neglecting them, encouraging them to commit crimes, committing crimes in front of them or exposing them to violence.

This. Parents who do this should be severely punished anyways, regardless if the child commits a crime or not.

And yes, if it can be proven that the parents behaviour contributed to the criminal behaviour, I would support some sort of liability of the parents.

[2xx1xy1JD]

This. Parents who do this should be severely punished anyways, regardless if the child commits a crime or not.

And yes, if it can be proven that the parents behaviour contributed to the criminal behaviour, I would support some sort of liability of the parents.

Yes, some of these things are bad and should have consequences, whether or not the child becomes a criminal. Where I live, for example, there's been a trend toward seeing a child's exposure to domestic violence as a form of child abuse, whether or not the child is physically harmed. Sometimes, you don't see criminal charges sticking because both parties were involved in the violence - but child protection officials may still get involved because witnessing violence is harmful to a child, period.

We also need more mental health resources for youth.

Liability for a child's criminal behavior, though, is absurd.

Parents don't have the ability to supervise a child 24/7 beyond a certain age. You can't have that degree of control without a child being committed to a locked juvenile facility.

"Getting help" often involves waiting lists, esp. when parents can't pay privately. It's also not always easy to get the right diagnosis immediately, or to get cooperation from the child. Not all problems are easily fixed.

Liability would scare off parents from keeping custody of their kids, and scare off foster and adoptive parents from taking on older kids. The result would be the exact opposite of what we want. Loving but struggling parents are often far better for kids than going into the child protection system. We often saw bad outcomes. Children who lose their own families - especially if they were rejected - and who go through a whole series of foster homes and/or group homes, do not tend to do well. They don't form proper bonds. They don't feel like anybody really cares about them. They become resistant to help. Take away more kids or scare away more parents, and problems will increase. (I'm not putting down individual foster parents. I know full well that removing kids is sometimes necessary, and at one point, that was my job. I'm saying that you can take a normal child, and the very process of taking them away from parents, having parents reject or give up on that child, bouncing around from one placement to another, not being able to call someone "mom" or "dad", not having the security of knowing that the people caring for you actually love you or consider you to be a full part of your family, is itself damaging to kids.

[Sundaymorning]

Yes, some of these things are bad and should have consequences, whether or not the child becomes a criminal. Where I live, for example, there's been a trend toward seeing a child's exposure to domestic violence as a form of child abuse, whether or not the child is physically harmed. Sometimes, you don't see criminal charges sticking because both parties were involved in the violence - but child protection officials may still get involved because witnessing violence is harmful to a child, period.

We also need more mental health resources for youth.

Liability for a child's criminal behavior, though, is absurd.

Parents don't have the ability to supervise a child 24/7 beyond a certain age. You can't have that degree of control without a child being committed to a locked juvenile facility.

"Getting help" often involves waiting lists, esp. when parents can't pay privately. It's also not always easy to get the right diagnosis immediately, or to get cooperation from the child. Not all problems are easily fixed.

Liability would scare off parents from keeping custody of their kids, and scare off foster and adoptive parents from taking on older kids. The result would be the exact opposite of what we want. Loving but struggling parents are often far better for kids than going into the child protection system. We often saw bad outcomes. Children who lose their own families - especially if they were rejected - and who go through a whole series of foster homes and/or group homes, do not tend to do well. They don't form proper bonds. They don't feel like anybody really cares about them. They become resistant to help. Take away more kids or scare away more parents, and problems will increase. (I'm not putting down individual foster parents. I know full well that removing kids is sometimes necessary, and at one point, that was my job. I'm saying that you can take a normal child, and the very process of taking them away from parents, having parents reject or give up on that child, bouncing around from one placement to another, not being able to call someone "mom" or "dad", not having the security of knowing that the people caring for you actually love you or consider you to be a full part of your family, is itself damaging to kids.

I think it should clearly be defined when a parents is partly responsible and should be liable for his childs criminal behaviour. Parents who are willing to cooperate with social workers for example, or sign their kids up for therapy and so on should be exempted for example.

However, around here we often have the problem that parents simply don't give a *** if their children commit crimes. They don't want to work together with teachers or social workers, don't show up for meetings and so on.

And no, many of these parents are not poor or sick or on drugs. They are upper-middle class and the parents simply think that their precious kids can do anything they want. We had the case where four teens, who were known to terrorize fellow students and teachers without their parents doint anything about it, beat up a young boy. And the parents weren't willing to cooperate but instead denied any responsibility. There kinds of parents should be fully liable.