Last week, Judge Cheryl A. Mathews sentenced James and Jennifer Crumbley, parents of the Oxford, Michigan school shooter, to 10-15 years in prison for manslaughter. This precedent-setting case marks the first time parents were held accountable for a mass school shooting perpetrated by their child. Did Judge Mathews hand down an appropriate sentence? Will her sentencing decision act as a deterrence for future cases? You be the judge as we get into the details.
Background
The parents of the teen responsible for the 2021 Oxford, Michigan school shooting received a 10–15-year prison sentence after a jury found them guilty of manslaughter. Normally, the maximum penalty for this particular conviction is 15 years in prison. However, Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald pushed for a sentence beyond the maximum allowed, emphasizing the foreseeable impact of the Crumbleys’ negligence. Defense attorneys for the pair sought less than five years, accounting for the two years already served.
Judge Matthews’ sentence sent a message of deterrence, highlighting the Crumbleys’ inaction as contributory to the tragedy. Indeed, in elaborating on her sentencing decision, she stated, “These convictions confirm repeated acts, or lack of acts, that could have halted an oncoming runaway train.” The landmark decision underscores the vital role of judicial discretion in criminal sentencing, where judges often balance sentencing guidelines with the need for proportional and deterrent sentences.
Sentencing Guidelines and Judicial Discretion
Pursuant to Michigan sentencing guidelines, “A sentencing court may now exercise its discretion to depart from the guidelines range without articulating substantial and compelling reasons for doing so, and a departure sentence will be reviewed on appeal for reasonableness.” Additionally, “A court may depart from the appropriate sentence range established under the sentencing guidelines . . . if the departure is reasonable and the court states on the record the reasons for departure.”
The guidelines go on to lay out the following three factors for judges to consider: They are:
(1) the seriousness of the offense;
(2) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation; and
(3) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines in a particular case.
According to a study conducted by the Department of Justice, “the role of sentencing guidelines [is to achieve] a balance between discretion and controlled decision making.”
Judge Mathews’ sentence in the case at hand, spoke to the findings that the defendants “repeatedly ignor[ed] things that would make a reasonable person feel the hair on the back of her neck stand up.” For this reason, she found that the sentencing guidelines “did not capture the catastrophic impact of the acts and inaction…and the complete lack of insight both defendants had of their behavior…and the guidelines do not account for the severity of the circumstances in this manner…including the victims…”
Balancing Proportionality and Deterrence in Sentencing Procedures
According to a University of Pennsylvania Law School faculty article, criminal punishment should match the seriousness of the offense. While the proportionality principle discourages excessive punishments, it acknowledges that punishment can be disproportionate if too harsh or too lenient relative to the offense or offender. Judicial discretion allows judges to tailor punishments to individual cases, ensuring fairness and appropriate sentencing.
Judge Mathews’ decision evidences her attempts at balancing proportionality and the interests of justice. A challenging position when accounting for the uniqueness of this case and the tragic outcome based on the defendant’s negligent behavior. Time will tell whether Judge Mathews intentional and deliberately harsh sentencing may in fact be seen as a deterrent against parental failures like those in this case. Especially when such failures lead to devastating acts of violence.
Do you agree with her decision?
Interested in Judge Mathews’ Record?
Check out Trellis! Trellis is an AI-driven, state trial court research and analytics platform. We make the fragmented U.S. state trial court system searchable through a single interface, offering comprehensive insights into judges, cases, and opposing counsel. Effortlessly track lawsuits across states and stay updated with ongoing litigation documents. Request a demo today and elevate your legal practice with our intuitive analytics and API.
Sources:
Judge Bio Page:
https://trellis.law/judge-dashboard/12568/bio
News & Article Sources:
https://www.fox2detroit.com/video/1438526
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/james-jennifer-crumbley-sentencing-04-09-24/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/us/crumbley-sentencing-oxford-high-shooting.html
Michigan Sentencing Guidelines:
https://www.courts.michigan.gov/495d41/siteassets/publications/benchbooks/sgm/sgm.pdf
Scholarly Articles and Studies on Sentencing Guidelines and Proportionality
https://academic.oup.com/book/44930/chapter/384855665
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/223854.pdf
Music: Cast No Shadow by Anka Mason
Blog Narration: Anka Mason
