“THEY TURN THE MUR-D;ER..E;R INTO A VI;CTI;;M?” — A PARENT’S LETTERS CAUSE OUTRAGE, THE FAMILIES OF TWO VI….CTI–MS “ERASED” FROM TRA-GED-Y

🚨 “THEY TURN THE MURDERER INTO A VICTIM?” — A PARENT’S LETTERS CAUSE OUTRAGE, THE FAMILIES OF TWO VICTIMS “ERASED” FROM TRAGEDY

The letter to the judge is being heavily criticized for focusing solely on the “pain” of the suspect’s parents, instead of the irreparable loss suffered by the victims. Many believe this is proof that she has never truly faced the consequences of her own actions throughout her life….

In the world of shocking criminal cases, the public often shows sympathy for the parents of the perpetrator. Not because they are entirely innocent, but because many believe there is no greater pain than facing the truth that their own child committed a horrific crime. These parents often appear before the media in a state of despair, shame, or absolute silence. They don’t try to excuse their child’s behavior. They don’t ask for public pity. Instead, they project the image of people who have lost everything—honor, trust, and the future they once thought their child would have.

But there are cases that elicit a completely opposite reaction from the public.

Not because the brutality of the crime exceeds normal limits, but because the way the perpetrator’s family reacts afterward provokes more outrage than the crime itself. In such cases, the question is no longer just “what did the child do?”, but gradually shifts to: “how was he/she raised to believe they could do that without consequences?”

This is precisely what sparks heated debate on social media in many modern cases. The public is increasingly less accepting of a reaction where every conversation revolves around the “grief of the perpetrator,” while the victim’s family is almost completely absent from the center of the tragedy. Especially in murders involving teenagers or young adults, the reaction of the accused’s parents often becomes part of the public debate, no less significant than the legal evidence.

Many criminal psychology experts believe this phenomenon reflects a major shift in societal awareness of family responsibility. For decades, public opinion tended to distance parents from their children’s criminal behavior, arguing that ultimately, each individual must take responsibility for their own choices. But in the age of social media, where every word, letter, or statement is publicly analyzed, the public is beginning to look deeper into the upbringing behind shocking cases.

And sometimes, it is precisely these post-crime reactions that lead people to believe that the tragedy didn’t just appear out of nowhere.

One of the things that often angers the public is when the parents of the accused repeatedly portray their child as the “real victim.” In many letters to judges or statements to the press, the suffering of the perpetrator’s family is described in great detail: mental breakdown, feelings of loss, despair at seeing their child face a long prison sentence. But what provokes such a strong public reaction is that sometimes these statements almost completely omit any mention of the deceased victims.

That is the moment when the emotional balance in the public eye completely collapses.

Two families lose their children forever. Two lives are stolen and cannot be recovered. But instead of acknowledging the gravity of the act, some parents inadvertently make the public feel that they only care about their own child’s future. This is particularly controversial when the perpetrator’s family continues to lobby for reduced sentences, calls for release, or portrays the accused as someone “misunderstood.”

For many, it’s no longer parental love. It becomes an expression of a denial of responsibility.

Sociologists have repeatedly warned about the phenomenon of “raising children without consequences”—where children grow up in an environment where every mistake is justified, every action is excused, and every punishment is seen as unjust. In such an environment, children don’t learn to fear consequences. They don’t truly understand that there are moral boundaries that cannot be crossed.

Many studies on the psychology of juvenile delinquency reveal a striking commonality: a sense of privilege. Not all grow up wealthy or materially spoiled, but many are taught—directly or indirectly—that someone else will always clean up the mess for them. When disciplined at school, parents defend them. When they hurt others, the blame is placed on circumstances. When conflict arises, the child is always portrayed as the “victim.”

Over time, this type of upbringing creates a distorted worldview: where individuals believe their own feelings are more important than the consequences for others.

That’s why many modern crimes are no longer seen simply as impulsive individual acts. The public is beginning to question the emotional ecosystem behind the perpetrator—family, social environment, how parents reacted to their children’s wrongdoings for years before the tragedy occurred.

Of course, no one can claim that parents are entirely responsible for their children’s crimes. Many parents…

Families may have made mistakes in raising their children, but their children didn’t become criminals. Ultimately, people still have the right to choose. But what angered the public was that even after the tragedy, the perpetrator’s family still didn’t show a clear understanding of the seriousness of what had happened.

In the public eye, this seemed like evidence that the problem existed beforehand.

Many media experts also argue that social media is changing how society views “empathy.” Previously, the public often accepted the complex emotions of the perpetrator’s family as a natural part of the tragedy. But today, with victims’ families having a stronger voice in the media and on social networks, any justification for the accused risks being seen as offensive to the deceased.

This creates a form of “public moral conflict.” One side argues that parents always have the right to love and protect their children no matter what. The other side believes there’s a fine line after which continued defense becomes a denial of the victim’s pain.

That’s why letters of appeal for leniency often provoke a stronger reaction than ever before. The public doesn’t just read the legal text; they read the attitude. They analyze whether the defendant’s family truly understands the consequences of their child’s actions.

And sometimes, it’s this lack of awareness that chills public opinion.

In many high-profile cases in the US, Canada, and the UK, criminal psychology experts have noted that some young perpetrators grew up in environments where responsibility was constantly postponed. Instead of learning to face consequences from a young age, they were constantly protected from emotional damage. This creates a type of psychology that researchers call “fragile entitlement”—a feeling of being special but extremely fragile when faced with failure or rejection.

When that kind of mentality combines with anger, jealousy, or emotional distress, the consequences can sometimes be horrific.

That’s why many believe that parental responsibility doesn’t end with “not directly committing the crime.” Modern society is beginning to view responsibility from a broader perspective: what kind of personality have parents instilled in their children? Do they teach their children responsibility or do they always help them evade it? Do they teach empathy for others or do they only focus on their own children’s feelings?

These questions are particularly painful in cases where the victims are very young.

Because behind every legal debate lies an unchangeable truth: some people will never return home. The victims’ families have no chance to make amends. No chance to apologize. No future. And for them, constantly hearing the perpetrator described as “a good child who made a mistake” can feel like another stab in the back every time they appear in the media.

Many analysts argue that this is also why the public is increasingly reacting strongly to campaigns advocating for the release of perpetrators in serious murder cases. For supporters, it’s a belief in the possibility of rehabilitation. But for the victims’ families, it’s sometimes seen as an attempt to erase the consequences of the crime.

And it is this gap that prevents these types of cases from ever truly closing.

Because after the trial, the battle of memory continues. One side tries to preserve the image of their child as a human being worthy of redemption. The other side only wants the world to remember that there were victims who lost their lives forever.

At the heart of it all is the uncomfortable but increasingly discussed question in modern society:

Will parents ever be morally responsible for the people they have raised?

And if a child grows up without ever truly learning how to deal with consequences… does that mean the tragedy began long before the crime occurred?