Many will agree with their summation that justice has not been done for their son, and their pain only exacerbated.
Fifteen-year-old Stephen died after an extended assault by two other teenagers after a rugby practice in June last year.
Medical examinations showed an undiagnosed heart condition contributed to his death.
That fact meant one of his attackers, an 18-year-old, appeared for sentencing on Thursday after pleading guilty to an amended charge of assault with intent to injure, rather than the manslaughter charge he was initially to stand trial for but which the Crown dropped.
The teen, who has permanent name suppression, was granted a discharge without conviction by Justice Helen Winkelmann.
(Earlier this year, the second teen involved in the assault, a 16-year-old boy, was also discharged without conviction after admitting assaulting Stephen.)
The Dudley family's angry and emotional reaction to Thursday's sentencing was understandable; their pain writ large.
Stephen's father Brent shouted at the judge, saying: ''You're ... joking. His actions caused my son's death ... That's justice for you New Zealand. The law's an ass.''
Earlier, in his victim impact statement, he had told the 18-year-old he was ''the hand of evil'' and his actions were ''nothing but cowardice and brutality''.
Stephen ''was a lot smaller'' and ''attacked ... from behind''.
He added: ''Any thoughts of forgiveness are out of the question at this stage. I hold you entirely responsible for the death of our son ... you own that.''
Responsibility is a theme to which we refer frequently in this column of the newspaper, often hand-in-hand with discussions about rights, choices and consequences.
Attitudes towards violence are another theme prevalent in these pages.
Latent anger and aggression, combined with an increasing lack of respect for others and responsibility for one's actions, seem to have caused a shift in the way in which New Zealanders act with each other.
In a world saturated with all the wrong messages, breaking our society's cycle of violence is a huge challenge.
In criminal cases, sentences offer the opportunity to send a message to a person about their actions - and to society about what will not be tolerated.
In some cases there may be a price to pay of some kind.
And in most crime, a price has often been paid by a victim.
Of course, consequences must fit the crime and most New Zealanders would agree we do not want to live in a totalitarian state.
This case is highly emotive as it involves youngsters.
But people aged 17 or over are dealt with in the same manner as adults, and under New Zealand law the charge of assault with intent to injure carries a maximum term of three years' imprisonment.
It is understandable the message Stephen's family have taken from the decision in this case, therefore, is that a person can act with impunity.
That casual violence is tolerated.
That life is worth very little.
That victims count for nothing.
What the message sends to others will be debated.
The youth is undeniably lucky to have another chance and may well be remorseful and be suffering as has been reported.
Justice Winkelmann took that into account - opting perhaps not to destroy another young life, another family.
There may be other facts not known which further influenced the decision.
The possibility of an appeal may offer the Dudleys the chance to see whether - as many believe - a mistake has been made and whether they can find justice for Stephen and some sort of closure for themselves.
In the interim, all that seems certain is that our laws and sentencing, and the rights of victims, will be debated again as New Zealanders struggle to find what message they should take from a verdict most of us quite simply cannot believe or understand.
