Aurora Gunman's responsibility
It is interesting in our quest to understand what makes an adult walk into a crowded theater and try to kill a whole bunch of people; our society always tries to absolve the individual of his responsibility.
The New York Times spent a whole lot of ink trying to explain that the shooter in the Aurora, Colorado, theater shooting that killed 12 (plus the shooter) and wounded something like 55 was obviously mentally deranged and therefore, obviously, not responsible for actions. Barley Corn.
Yes, there were warning signs. Yes, I suppose, that the appropriate mental health professionals at the University of Colorado at Denver campus could have done more. But you know something; the young man in question could have done a lot more to stop himself. You do realize that this person is an adult, a very smart one from all testimony.
Ironically, he knew he was slipping off the edge. He could have made a choice. He could have gone to the psychiatrist that he sent the tome to and said, “Doctor, I have a problem, and I fear I might go out of control.”
With his intelligence and background, particularly since CU-D is the campus of the CU medical school, one would think that he would have enough awareness to know that he was slipping over the edge. He obviously did, because he told “friends” that he was going to do something, but nothing specific enough to run to the cops and say “you need to investigate him.”
What bothers me is that this young man probably will be determined non-guilty by reason of insanity, or at least the NYT is laying the groundwork for that defense.
How about this, folks: A young man makes some really horrendous, atrocious choices, relatively deliberately and rationally. He is aware what he is doing is not correct, and actually does seek some help from the mental health community. He could go the next step and be honest with the mental health professionals dealing with him, or he could just go to them and say “put me somewhere I won’t hurt myself or other people.”
I know I am sounding far too rational for this case, but since the young man did not make those choices, then I fear he should pay the penalty for committing aggravated murder with malice aforethought.
Given the information that we have at this point, insanity is not a defense. Of course, then we can ask ourselves why people do this. Why do seeming intelligent, rational people choose to kill, maim or rape people? It is a good question, and one I don’t have a simple answer to.
However, if you look through history, you find so many cases where this happens that you begin to wonder about people. Whether is small mass murders to mass murders on the scale of the Holocaust or other genocides, people you would think would know better get swept up in the dementia of killing, torture and rapine.
It is not unique to any society. If you think it is, then you are the one who is deluding yourself. It is a plague upon mankind and cuts across all societal structures.
How do we stop it? I don’t know if we can, given the emotional, rather than rational, nature of humans. How many times a day do we do something that defies even our own sense of rationality? Take a moment and examine your own behavior and analyze how many times you let your emotions of the moment, day, week, month, year, to overwhelm what people would tell you is rational behavior.
Yes, humans are rational creatures, but they also are very irrational creatures. That probably is what sets us apart from all the other animals in the animal kingdom. We have the capability to be both rational and irrational at the same time.
As I said, I don’t have a solution to this dichotomy. I am, however, a reluctant proponent of capital punishment, in that there are some behaviors for which there is no forgiveness. There are some things that people can do that transcend the boundaries of civilized behaviors and therefore those people have forfeited their right to live in civilized society. Since we no longer have the Botany Bay option (sending them off to a deserted island where there is no chance of escape and return to civilization), then the only way to remove them, and the threat they pose, from society permanently is for them to forfeit their lives. You can make a case for perpetual incarceration, but these people still pose a threat not only to the people who perforce must watch over them to ensure they stay behind bars but also to the other people who must, by necessity, share accommodations with them. At some point, society has to say that mere banishment to some penal facility is not enough. In those cases, when the crime has been so wanton or so heinous (killing or attempting to kill a large number of people qualifies, in my humble opinion), then the killer’s life is forfeit.
I know there are a lot of people who will disagree with me on this point, and I do understand. However, some things truly are evil or unacceptable and have to be eliminated. In those cases, there are no excuses.
No comments:
Post a Comment