The Warning Signs of a Mass Killer.
One of the most common cliches in cases of mass killers is the claim that so-and-so (insert name of someone who knew the killer) "had no idea that the killer was capable of such horror". I think that probably has something to do with the fact that people rarely extend themselves beyond their own cloistered existence. Too many folks just assume that others feel the way that they do. That's a shame because mass killings are only the most extreme of events that occur partially as a result of such willful ignorance. In many cases, if people had been more perceptive and thoughtful about the feelings and thoughts of others around them- it might have been possible to avoid some troubling incidents.
In the case of Cho Seung-Hui (perpetrator of the Virginia Tech massacre), it's hard to believe anyone who says that they saw no signs that he could commit potential acts of mayhem against society. From all accounts, it was quite clear that Seung Cho was estranged from humanity. His roommate used to come home to find Cho seated at his desk and staring at nothing. The most common label attributed to his personality is "loner". His professors in the English Department (Cho had switched from his business major) were fully aware of Cho's cast of mind.
Have a look here at one of the killer's plays. In "Richard McBeef" a 13-year old boy tries to suffocate his stepfather with a cereal bar. Like the paintings of notorious killers John Wayne Gacy and Richard Ramirez, there's no doubt that true crime fanatics will be analyzing these pieces for decades. They are written poorly, and seem to indicate a serious lack of emotional development. Addionally, it's pretty obvious from them that Seung Cho was obsessed with violence. That was certainly the conclusion of at least some who surrounded him. His fellow students walked very lightly around his moods. When called to participate in peer reviews of their fellow students' work, the weighed their criticism of Cho very carefully. According to Ian MacFarlane, he and his fellow classmates were afraid Cho "might snap".
Almost to a person, reports indicate that this young man refused to engage in casual conversation. He'd simply shake his head and walk away. About the most that people got out of him was a one-word response. His poetry professor had him removed from class because he frightened other students. At least one of his professors referred him to campus counseling. Another spoke to school authorities about her fears, but was (by her own account) not taken seriously. He was apparently a diagnosed depressive, since he was taking prescription medicine to address such a problem. He was investigated by campus police in two separate stalking incidents. He set a fire in his dormitory. There are even reports that he was briefly institutionalizd for suicidal ideation. And yet he was still allowed by federal law to purchase several handguns, which he subsequently used in the massacre of more than 30 people. It is also known that Seung Cho methodically planned the activities that he carried out this past Monday.
Somehow I feel that there should be some system within our society to address individuals who are in such obvious need of assistance. If substantial intercession had occurred at some point along Cho's trajectory of increasing pain and violence, then things might have turned out differently. I don't know exactly how to go about it, but some sort of structure should be adopted. And I think it's important that such a system is bundled with access to quality preventive mental health care. But this is a nation of reaction rather than prevention. Instead of focusing on an attempt to understand the perpetrator's mental state, and brainstorming ways to prevent such violent outbursts, our leaders are using this tragic event as an opportunity to lobby for personal gun ownership (with the dubious assumption that more guns in more hands will reduce the incidence and extent of killing sprees).
Our society values above all else a myth of "rugged individualism". Besides justifying the acquisition of wealth at the expense of the public good, I'm not all that sure what this actually means. The general attitude of Americans is that everyone starts with equal opportunity, and other people's problems are their own to deal with. The culture of violence promoted by our leaders and the entertainment media suggests that the way to deal with others is with force. Unless we change our ways, becoming more sensitive to the complex difficulties that our fellow humans face, we are sure to encounter a continuing chain of problems that periodically escalate to the level of tragedy that we witnessed this past Monday.
In the case of Cho Seung-Hui (perpetrator of the Virginia Tech massacre), it's hard to believe anyone who says that they saw no signs that he could commit potential acts of mayhem against society. From all accounts, it was quite clear that Seung Cho was estranged from humanity. His roommate used to come home to find Cho seated at his desk and staring at nothing. The most common label attributed to his personality is "loner". His professors in the English Department (Cho had switched from his business major) were fully aware of Cho's cast of mind.
Have a look here at one of the killer's plays. In "Richard McBeef" a 13-year old boy tries to suffocate his stepfather with a cereal bar. Like the paintings of notorious killers John Wayne Gacy and Richard Ramirez, there's no doubt that true crime fanatics will be analyzing these pieces for decades. They are written poorly, and seem to indicate a serious lack of emotional development. Addionally, it's pretty obvious from them that Seung Cho was obsessed with violence. That was certainly the conclusion of at least some who surrounded him. His fellow students walked very lightly around his moods. When called to participate in peer reviews of their fellow students' work, the weighed their criticism of Cho very carefully. According to Ian MacFarlane, he and his fellow classmates were afraid Cho "might snap".
Almost to a person, reports indicate that this young man refused to engage in casual conversation. He'd simply shake his head and walk away. About the most that people got out of him was a one-word response. His poetry professor had him removed from class because he frightened other students. At least one of his professors referred him to campus counseling. Another spoke to school authorities about her fears, but was (by her own account) not taken seriously. He was apparently a diagnosed depressive, since he was taking prescription medicine to address such a problem. He was investigated by campus police in two separate stalking incidents. He set a fire in his dormitory. There are even reports that he was briefly institutionalizd for suicidal ideation. And yet he was still allowed by federal law to purchase several handguns, which he subsequently used in the massacre of more than 30 people. It is also known that Seung Cho methodically planned the activities that he carried out this past Monday.
Somehow I feel that there should be some system within our society to address individuals who are in such obvious need of assistance. If substantial intercession had occurred at some point along Cho's trajectory of increasing pain and violence, then things might have turned out differently. I don't know exactly how to go about it, but some sort of structure should be adopted. And I think it's important that such a system is bundled with access to quality preventive mental health care. But this is a nation of reaction rather than prevention. Instead of focusing on an attempt to understand the perpetrator's mental state, and brainstorming ways to prevent such violent outbursts, our leaders are using this tragic event as an opportunity to lobby for personal gun ownership (with the dubious assumption that more guns in more hands will reduce the incidence and extent of killing sprees).
Our society values above all else a myth of "rugged individualism". Besides justifying the acquisition of wealth at the expense of the public good, I'm not all that sure what this actually means. The general attitude of Americans is that everyone starts with equal opportunity, and other people's problems are their own to deal with. The culture of violence promoted by our leaders and the entertainment media suggests that the way to deal with others is with force. Unless we change our ways, becoming more sensitive to the complex difficulties that our fellow humans face, we are sure to encounter a continuing chain of problems that periodically escalate to the level of tragedy that we witnessed this past Monday.
posted by Merge Divide at 3:13 PM
4 Comments:
This is a tough subject. The thing that you never hear about are the poor souls that have walked a paralell path and haven't snapped. I don't think we should all be subject to some definition of normal and undergo chemical therapy if we vary from a set of standards. There can be a heroic struggle to overcome base impulses for some people. Too bad those successes are never acknowledged.
I'm not offering an answer to this dilemma. I don't think there is one that I would find palatable.
I agree. There are no easy solutions to this, obviously.
One interesting component to liberty is what is referred to as "freedom from prior restraint". Thie ensures that, until we have actually committed a crime, authorities can not hold us, nor make us get mental treatment. Even if all the signs are present... al we can do is observe and try to persuade soemone to get help.
Hopefully "freedom from prior restraint" will continue to be a tradition stand, unlike habeas corpus.
And the birth of "preemptive strike."
There needs to be a cultural shift. That will take new ways and forms of communication and a long time.
I agree with Susan. I've known people that fit that description to the letter. They either turned on themselves or/and found the courage to continue. There are even aspects I can identify with and even fantasize.
To put it bluntly, many of the self-involved people at Virginia tech won't be missed in the historic sense. With exception of the holocaust survivor who risked his life to save others.
Oh by the way I think his last name is Cho and his first is Seung-Hui.
Things could get pretty ugly (wwhat with all the progress in DNA research) if prior restraint is widely exercised. It seems that our philosophers need to catch up with our scientists.
Post a Comment
<< Home