VT murderer - Madman or Evil Psychopath?
It has been a week since the murders at Virginia Tech. As has everyone else, I have heard many comments and questions from family and from people who know our three daughters graduated from Tech. Of course, having any kind of link to the university is in the end irrelevant. This could have happened on just about any campus, and it affects everyone to some degree.
Several people characterize the murderer (he who shall emphatically not be named) as evil. Others speak of his autistic symptoms. It seems that by applying a label to the killer, we are trying to internalize the horror and manage it. So to that extent, a label is only as useful as its effectiveness in dealing with the shock. But these interpretations of the gunman's psyche also direct how we think about preventing such behavior.
If he was a psychopath and evil, he should have been sent to prison. He forfeited his right to freedom when he chose to become a threat to others. He was conscious of his murderous intent.
If he was mentally ill (one can of course argue that psychopathy is by definition also a mental illness) in a physiological sense, he was not evil so much as delusional. He belonged in obligatory treatment, perhaps for life, in a mental hospital.
In either case, his history of violent writings, stalking of women and referral to psych counseling should have been in the public record, accessible to law enforcement officers and gun sellers. One's right to privacy extends only until it puts other people at risk. Systematic coordination of information from police records, counseling services and school reports could produce a profile of danger in time to prevent tragedy. And prevention is always more effective than reaction.
Several people characterize the murderer (he who shall emphatically not be named) as evil. Others speak of his autistic symptoms. It seems that by applying a label to the killer, we are trying to internalize the horror and manage it. So to that extent, a label is only as useful as its effectiveness in dealing with the shock. But these interpretations of the gunman's psyche also direct how we think about preventing such behavior.
If he was a psychopath and evil, he should have been sent to prison. He forfeited his right to freedom when he chose to become a threat to others. He was conscious of his murderous intent.
If he was mentally ill (one can of course argue that psychopathy is by definition also a mental illness) in a physiological sense, he was not evil so much as delusional. He belonged in obligatory treatment, perhaps for life, in a mental hospital.
In either case, his history of violent writings, stalking of women and referral to psych counseling should have been in the public record, accessible to law enforcement officers and gun sellers. One's right to privacy extends only until it puts other people at risk. Systematic coordination of information from police records, counseling services and school reports could produce a profile of danger in time to prevent tragedy. And prevention is always more effective than reaction.
posted by alison @ 11:22 AM
1 Comments:
At 9:32 AM,
Anonymous said…
I agree - especially in regards to your last comment. I think the biggest problem though is the desire to point a finger and place blame. Yes, he should be been 'red flagged.' Yes, he should have been institutionalized. Yes his parents should have been more involved/aware. Bottom line, though, is that he was a pyscho (mental illness or lack of mentality altogether) who probably would have killed regardless. And who's to say that having red-flagged him would have prevented him from getting a gun? Many many murders are carried out with illegal weapons - or even household items.
Post a Comment
<< Home