Skip to main content
opinion

A pet cat disappeared in the relatively sleepy Toronto neighbourhood of Riverdale last month. Her body was eventually found, allegedly shaved and chucked under a shed on a property where a 16-year-old boy lives with his parents. The corpse of a raccoon was also found; it appeared to have been tortured.

There was evidence that other animals in the area had been abused, though police did not specify exactly how many. On Aug. 29, they arrested that teen and laid multiple charges, one of which included failure to “comply with conditions,” suggesting he had been in trouble with the law before. The neighbourhood was, and still is, reeling.

These sorts of crimes are particularly chilling because they elude human logic and understanding. Many crimes, even the most violent ones, are motivated by clear incentives: Sexual predators are driven by lust and power; gang members eliminate rivals for clout, revenge or status. But what does anyone gain from torturing and killing a defenceless animal? What type of person could do that?

That is not an entirely rhetorical question, which is why the news has so deeply unsettled the Riverdale community. Luka Magnotta, who murdered and dismembered Chinese university student Jun Lin in Montreal in 2012, gained online notoriety for posting videos of himself torturing and killing kittens. Albert Fish, who was one of the most sadistic killers of the 20th century, set animals on fire as an adolescent. Obviously not all youths who torture animals move on to humans, but research has shown enough of a link between animal abuse, anti-social behaviour and other forms of violence for these actions to raise serious alarm bells.

And yet, the response from the parents of the Riverdale teen accused of these crimes came off as noticeably defensive. After their son’s arrest, they released a statement saying that they are “taking this seriously and are engaging the maximum available support.” But then they added: “This is for the safety of all of us, including our child. A child, who is also a vulnerable member of this community – something that some of you conveniently minimize.”

It struck the wrong tone with Riverdale residents, who are worried about their pets (and kids) living in a community with someone alleged to have committed such heinous acts. Did these parents, despite their deflection, genuinely appreciate the depravity of the acts of which their son is accused? Would they indeed seek the “maximum available support” for their son? If not, would they be culpable for his future actions?

The extent to which we hold parents responsible for the actions of their kids has long been a philosophical question, but not generally a question of law. Or rather, that was the case until very recently in the United States, where the parents of 2021 school shooter Ethan Crumbley were found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in relation to his shooting – a first-of-its kind conviction that appears to have set a new precedent. Indeed, just one week ago, the father of the student accused in the school shooting in Georgia was arrested in relation to that incident.

Truly harmful, abusive parenting is already criminalized, including here in Canada; parents can’t abuse their kids or neglect their basic needs. But what we don’t do, despite the new precedent in the U.S., is apply a retroactive criminal lens, applicable only when and if a child breaks the law himself. That’s because, from a legal perspective, it’s very hard to prove that a parent’s actions (or inactions) had a causal effect on their child’s actions. And more generally speaking, we understand that both nature and nurture can affect a child’s outcome; that influencing factors go beyond just parenting – friends, community, social climate, traumatic events and so on all play important roles.

Plenty of research has demonstrated clear links between troubled upbringings and future criminal behaviour, but there are also exceptions. Those exceptions are particularly notable in research of children displaying extreme callous-unemotional traits – psychopathic tendencies, in other words – for which there appear to be distinct physiological characteristics. These traits have also proven very difficult to treat in terms of behavioural interventions, meaning even the most caring, involved parents who try to help their children with disturbing anti-social behaviours may not be successful.

This is not to absolve the parents of the Riverdale teen of responsibility to get him all the help he might need. It is also not to excuse their tone-deaf statement, which was ill-conceived at a time when neighbours had legitimate concerns about their safety. Rather, it is to point out that these situations are often a lot more complicated than they might initially appear, and that better parenting – if that is indeed required in this case – might not fix what is alleged to be broken here.

That is, of course, cold comfort to the family of the dead cat, to Riverdale residents, and to anyone who wants to believe that horrific crimes can be prevented if only for the right type of parenting.

Follow related authors and topics

Authors and topics you follow will be added to your personal news feed in Following.

Interact with The Globe