Description
A, a 16-year-old minor, takes multiple assault-style guns into his high school and murders 35 people. A is killed by the police during the assault. Outraged and grieving, a local community attempts to wrestle with this enormous tragedy and to find a productive way forward.
The grieving community forms a non-profit group dedicated to the prevention of gun violence. The group is known as Fed Up. Fed Up hires a local attorney to explore legal options in light of the tragedy.
First, Fed Up asks the attorney if they can sue the gun manufacturers. But the attorney informs Fed Up that, generally speaking, the federal law known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) prevents lawsuits against gun manufacturers for these types of incidents. Undeterred, Fed Up asks the attorney if the parents of A can be criminally punished for failing to prevent this tragedy. After all, the guns used by A during the murders were owned by his parents and left unsecured. Furthermore, the biggest piece of news to emerge post-tragedy was that A had been suffering from depression for years and the parents did not seek any medical help for A. Indeed, As parents had even discovered some of As Internet posts where he had repeatedly threatened to kill people at his school. Despite this, they did nothing. Nevertheless, the attorney tells Fed Up that the state in which this occurred has no criminal penalties that can be enforced against As parents for the murders. Unfortunately, the attorney says, there isn’t much you can do other than grieve.
Fed Up refuses to believe that grieving is its only option. Fed Up is determined that this never happen again. But instead of devoting its time and resources to the banning of guns something it knows isn’t achievable Fed Up decides that its efforts would be better spent sending a message.
The message that Fed Up wants to send is to the parents of any minor who might commit this crime in the future. They want the parents to be held accountable in addition to the murderer. Fed Ups proposal is simple: if this type of crime happens again, then the parents of the minor will be held strictly liable for the minors commission of the crime. The proposed statute would require no proof of a guilty mind (i.e., mens rea). The commission of the crime alone would be enough to convict the parents. Mitigating factors (e.g., use of a safe, gun locks, etc.) could reduce the sentence given to the parents, but it would not remove the criminal liability. Fed Up believes that if the parents of these minors started to go to jail for their childrens murders, society would quickly change its attitude about guns, parents would get more serious about owning guns in the first place, and there would be a reduction in these types of crimes.
You are a legislator in the state where this strict liability crime bill is proposed. The name of the bill is No Mercy. You must now choose to either support No Mercy or oppose it. Defend your position.
