This paper examines a proposed community bill — the "No Mercy" bill — that would hold parents strictly liable when their minor children commit gun-related crimes. Writing from the perspective of a local legislator, the author argues against the bill on five grounds: it infringes on Second Amendment rights, risks prosecutorial overreach, ignores mental-health root causes, carries racially disparate enforcement consequences, and faces near-insurmountable hurdles to conviction under criminal law. The paper also acknowledges opposing research linking higher gun ownership to higher homicide rates before rebutting it. Alternative strategies, including stricter background checks, mental health intervention, and secure firearm storage, are offered as more effective and constitutionally sound responses to gun violence involving minors.
Gun control and various efforts to rein in gun-related violence deaths continue to be emotional and contentious issues. For this reason, no meaningful progress has been made to comprehensively address the problem of gun violence in most of the country's states. This paper focuses on a bold attempt to rein in gun-related violence involving minors in a local community following the shooting deaths of 35 people by a 16-year-old minor. In essence, the community — through a representative group referred to as "Fed Up" — proposes that going forward, parents of minors who engage in or commit gun violence be held strictly liable for such crimes. As a legislator in this particular community, I do not support the proposed strict liability crime bill.
From the outset, it is important to acknowledge that gun violence is a major issue of concern across the United States. Available data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as cited in Gramlich (2023), indicates that thousands of Americans continue to die each year from gun-related injuries. Indeed, the most recent complete data from 2021 shows that gun-related injuries claimed a total of 48,830 lives in that year alone. As the CDC notes, this figure includes those who lost their lives as a consequence of gun murders and suicides. These statistics point to the need for measures to reduce gun-related deaths at both the national and state or community levels.
Amnesty International (2022) is categorical that gun-related violence runs contrary to the right to life, which is a fundamental human right. It is also important to note that, as Amnesty International (2022) further indicates, gun-related violence does not always result in injury or death. Sometimes the harm occasioned is psychological. For instance, those who have witnessed gun-related violence may carry psychological scars or suffer from serious mental health concerns such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). All of these factors point to the urgency of addressing gun violence.
Various proposals have in the past been floated in efforts to curb or bring an end to gun-related violence. These include, but are not limited to: the implementation of stricter background checks, limiting or restricting the sale and ownership of assault rifles, and confiscating the firearms of persons deemed a threat to the safety of others. The present proposal seeks to ensure that parents are held accountable for the gun-related crimes and misdeeds of their children. More specifically, this would mean that if a minor commits a gun-related crime using a firearm owned by their parents, those parents would be held strictly liable for the crime committed. It is important to note that proof of guilt would not be required under the proposed bill as currently formulated. Further, although criminal liability cannot be removed by mitigating factors, the bill does allow for the sentence to be reduced by such factors. The "Fed Up" group is convinced that if fewer parents own or possess guns, minors will have no access to guns — effectively reducing gun-related violence and homicide involving minors. The group also hopes that the proposed bill will help reshape society's attitude toward guns.
As indicated in the introduction, I am opposed to the "No Mercy" bill in its entirety. To begin with, the bill could be viewed as a backdoor affront to the right to bear arms. In addition to having been part of American culture for a long time, the right to keep and bear arms is a key Second Amendment right aimed at protecting citizens of this republic. This is notwithstanding the fact that it remains one of the Constitution's most debated provisions. The bill would effectively discourage — and possibly prevent some — parents from owning guns, as it proposes that they be held strictly liable for the misuse of firearms registered to them by minors. Given that criminal intent does not have to be proven, and that the sentence cannot be removed by mitigating factors such as secure firearm storage, most parents with minor children would effectively avoid owning firearms. Thus, it could be argued that the bill unconstitutionally limits a right granted to all Americans by the Constitution. Yuill and Street (2017) are categorical that "over the years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution's right to bear arms as an individual self-defense right" (p. 142).
Second, I believe the "No Mercy" bill would set a dangerous precedent with respect to prosecutorial overreach. Prosecutorial overreach can be understood as the stretching of criminal laws by prosecutors in the execution of their mandate. This has occurred in the past. As Reimer (2014) observes in a National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) feature, prosecutors have been known to broadly expand criminal statutes. A notable example was United States v. Brigham Oil and Gas, LP, in which, as Reimer (2014) indicates, "Brigham Oil and Gas and several other companies were the subject of a prosecution that was based upon an absurdly broad application of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act." Although that case was eventually dismissed, it illustrates that prosecutors can and do pursue expansions of criminal law. One must ask: if this has happened before, what would prevent prosecutors from seeking an equally broad application of the "No Mercy" bill? We ought to be guided by past lessons.
Third, I am convinced that the "No Mercy" bill falls into the trap of believing that incarcerating more people is the best way to rein in gun violence. To a large extent, it fails to address the root cause of gun violence involving minors. In the present scenario, the 16-year-old minor is reported to have been suffering from depression for several years prior to the shooting. It follows that had appropriate mental health interventions been embraced, the minor might not have committed the homicide. We should therefore seek to understand the crime by examining the minor's mental health condition and whether there were failures on the part of relevant stakeholders — parents, teachers, and perhaps religious leaders — to recognize the problem and institute appropriate interventions. This is especially important given that there are a host of other serious concerns linked to mental health problems among teenagers. As Das, Salam, Lassi, Khan, Mahmood, Patel, and Bhutta (2016) indicate, "Poor mental health has been associated with teenage pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, other sexually transmitted diseases, domestic violence, child abuse, motor vehicle crashes, physical fights, crime, homicide, and suicide" (p. s51). Addressing root causes would yield better outcomes across the board, rather than pursuing knee-jerk reactions to an existing problem.
Fourth, there are those who contend that any attempt to jail parents for gun-related crimes committed by their children will carry racial implications and potentially perpetuate racial injustices that the country has worked hard to reduce. According to Bernick (as cited in Bokat-Lindell, 2021), Black parents are likely to be disproportionately affected by laws that seek to hold parents criminally responsible for crimes of this nature. Bernick — an assistant professor of law at Northern Illinois University College of Law — is particularly concerned that holding parents responsible for the gun-related felonies of their children would most likely produce racially disparate prosecutions. This is especially true, he argues, given that those most likely to be involved in gang activity are racial minorities. In his words, "prosecutors might target Black parents who fail to identify warning signs in advance and don't intervene before someone gets hurt or killed" (Bernick, as cited in Bokat-Lindell, 2021).
Finally, I believe that if a law of this nature were enacted, it would be extremely difficult to obtain a conviction under criminal law. Allison Anderman, local policy director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, points out that she has yet to come across "a high-profile mass shooting where parents were prosecuted" (Bokat-Lindell, 2021). Whereas there are many reasons for this difficulty, Bokat-Lindell (2021) notes that one of the main prosecution hurdles is the failure of most states to enact child-access prevention laws — laws that mandate parents to ensure guns are kept safe and secure when minors are present in the household. Bokat-Lindell (2021) also notes that the high burden of proof for a charge of this nature poses a significant obstacle to conviction. Under criminal law, the prosecution is generally expected to prove that the defendant possessed a culpable state of mind when engaging in the offense in question. As Bokat-Lindell (2021) notes, Justice Holmes captured this concept clearly when he pointed out that "even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked." When a minor gains access to a gun that was lawfully acquired and securely stored — and uses it to commit a crime — it would be difficult to hold their parents strictly liable. This means that state resources would be devoted to legal pursuits with very little probability of success. Those resources would be better deployed toward strategies with a greater likelihood of reducing gun violence.
Having presented my position on the proposed bill, it is necessary to acknowledge a likely opposing argument. One could argue that the fewer guns held by people, the fewer guns will be available for the commission of crimes — in this case by minors. Research studies have been conducted that appear to support this assertion. For instance, Duggan (2001) concluded that more guns result in a higher number of crimes. More recent studies point to similar conclusions. For example, in a 2013 study, the authors "observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates" (Siegel, Ross, and King, 2013, p. 98).
At first glance, the link between the number of guns and crime or homicide rates appears largely logical. However, the studies cited above fail to account for the impact of strategies such as safe firearm storage on crime and homicide rates. If gun owners observe ideal secure storage regulations and standards, the likelihood of firearms falling into the wrong hands is significantly reduced. The solution, therefore, need not involve curtailing ownership rights — it can instead focus on responsible storage and access controls.
There is no doubt that a lasting solution to the problem of gun violence involving minors must be found and implemented. This is especially true given the profound negative effects of gun violence on society, families, and individuals. However, the measures embraced on this front must be effective, meaningful, and free of negative or unintended consequences. The "No Mercy" bill, as proposed, does not satisfy these standards. In addition to risking a dangerous precedent with respect to prosecutorial overreach, a strong argument can be made that the bill runs afoul of the spirit of the Constitution with regard to the Second Amendment. Furthermore, the "No Mercy" bill fails to address a key root cause of gun violence involving minors — namely, depression — and consequently fails to acknowledge and remedy the broader consequences of this mental health condition.
The probable racial implications of the bill, as discussed in this paper, also disqualify it as an ideal or desirable solution to gun-related violence involving minors. Putting more people in jail — if that proves achievable at all — will not address the underlying problem. Better strategies exist for preventing the misuse of guns by minors without curtailing the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, or appearing to do so through legislation. Options worth exploring include apportioning greater focus on stricter background checks, prompt and adequate resolution of mental health issues, and the utilization of secure gun locks and storage requirements, among others.
Amnesty International (2022). Gun Violence. https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/arms-control/gun-violence/
Bokat-Lindell, S. (2021). After a school shooting, should parents be prosecuted? New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/14/opinion/school-shootings-parents.html
Das, J. K., Salam, R. A., Lassi, Z. S., Khan, M. N., Mahmood, W., Patel, V., & Bhutta, Z. A. (2016). Interventions for adolescent mental health: An overview of systematic reviews. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 59(4), 49–60.
Duggan, M. (2001). More guns, more crime. Journal of Political Economy, 109(5), 197–204.
"Research linking gun ownership to homicide rates"
Siegel, M., Ross, C. S., & King, C. (2013). The relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates in the United States, 1981–2010. American Journal of Public Health, 103(11), 98–105.
Yuill, K., & Street, J. (2017). The Second Amendment and gun control: Freedom, fear, and the American Constitution. Taylor & Francis.
You’re 97% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.