by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright April 15, 1998
All Rights Reserved.

pening fire on their classmates, adolescents Mitchell Johnson, 13, and Andrew Golden, 11, crossed the unthinkable line and now sit in a juvenile detention facility in Jonesboro, Ark., awaiting arraignment on April 29, 1998 for murder and aggravated assault. Donning army fatigues, hijacking a van and borrowing the senior Golden’s .44 caliber Ruger and 30.06 hunting rifle, the two minors staged a grandiose last stand at their alma mater, Westside Middle School. Reminiscent of the movie Taxi Driver, the ballistic episode remains truly inexplicable. Many are still asking — why? What were the conceivable motives of these misguided youths as they mowed-down their fellow schoolmates? Staging a phony fire drill, the two adolescents opened fire as their unsuspecting classmates and teachers vacated their classrooms. When the melee finally ended, they had killed 4 schoolgirls and one teacher, and injured eleven others on March 25, 1998. Shocking the bucolic community of Jonesboro and the nation, the episode leaves the public nonplused and less secure.

       Recognizing that most states hold parents accountable for property and casualty losses, few have indicated that accountability belongs to the parents whose egregious lack of supervision contributed to this episode. Knowing that children desperately need parental supervision, what kind was being provided to these youths who had unimpeded access to automobiles and dangerous weapons? Certainly 11 or 13 year olds know the difference between fantasy and reality, but what about the adult’s reality in leaving lethal weapons unattended and accessible to their children? Although many hold the youths entirely accountable, some have suggested they be tried as adults. Others have been hasty to once again blame television for fostering excessive violence. Following violent episodes, fingers frequently point in the wrong direction. Blaming the media for random acts of violence is like blaming McDonald’s for causing high cholesterol.

       Pushing common sense out-of-bounds, it’s far easier for social scientists to target extraneous variables — like television viewing — rather than contributory factors like abusive or neglectful parenting, something far more difficult to measure. While it’s tempting to be overly simplistic, attributing random acts of violence to television — or any other factors like bad heredity — sheds little light on how it can be eventually prevented. Post mortem profiles of the suspects — in the Jonesboro episode — yield some curious observations. "I wouldn’t let her play with this kid because — it’s mean to say — he was so demented," said Lloyd Brooks, who forbid his daughter, Jenna, from playing with Andrew Golden. While hindsight is always 20/20, you don’t have to be a neurologist to recognize basic warning signs. Surely Mr. & Mrs. Golden, both of whom were postmasters in local communities, must have known that their 11 year old shouldn’t have had access to their cache of firearms.

       If nightclubs or bars can be held accountable for alcohol-related deaths or damage of its imbibing patrons, shouldn’t parents be held responsible for mayhem caused by their dependent children? When parents exercise their second amendment rights — to bear arms — shouldn’t they also be required to prevent access to minors? Perhaps that’s unrealistic. While it’s true that the parents didn’t pull the trigger, it’s also true that they afforded their children too easy access. Such logic is now mobilizing some congressional waves, but it’s already too late for the victims and community of Jonesboro. Watching violence on cartoons or movies is no more responsible for this tragedy than viewing altruistic performances in a Jerry Lewis telethon are responsible for finding a cure for muscular dystrophy. People are responsible for whipping out their check books and subsidizing important causes; and parents are equally liable for assuring that dangerous weapons are kept out of childrens’ reach. Funny, isn’t it, how few have questioned the unmistakable parenting responsibility to protect their children from access to dangerous conditions, e.g., firearms, explosives, poisons, toxic medications, cellophane garment bags, etc.

       Questioning the judgment of children or adolescents to recognize the consequences of their behavior, doesn’t excuse parents from their fundamental responsibility to protect children against their own self-destructive impulses. Can you imagine parents with drug or alcohol problems providing their minors with unfettered access to their illicit chemicals? Such environments are widely recognized as unfit and children are promptly removed by Child Protective Services. How safe is a home environment replete with weapons and ammunition? Taking exception to the NRA and other gun-advocacy groups, research on firearm violence clearly indicates that the trigger pulls the finger, namely, that access and availability of firearms leads to destruction and death. Second amendment advocates have always argued that the finger pulls the trigger, or, to put it another way, that individuals are responsible for their own violence. But obviously, such logic, applied to the war on drugs, would never hold up. Can you really expect drug abuse to drop without vigilant efforts at interdiction? I don’t think so. In fact, when drugs are more accessible, drug abuse rapidly escalates. Why can’t we see that the same logic applies to firearms? It seems so obvious.

       Without taking a position on gun control, it’s reasonable to expect parents to control the access to firearms for their children. That’s the least that they can do. Training toddlers and young children to use real guns might be entertaining but is no cure for immaturity and doesn’t promote gun safety. Since we all know that youth carries its own risks — this fact has been long recognized by a separate juvenile justice system — trying masters Mitchell and Golden as adults is entirely hypocritical and even vindictive. Let’s face the fact — regardless of their crimes — that they’re still children and barely adolescents. As the arraignment approaches, perhaps we’ll all be on trial as we deal with this tragic breakdown. Maybe it’s time to re-examine some basic elements of parental responsibility.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is director of a West Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care and political research and media consultation. He’s a seminar trainer, columnist and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.