evil

We were discussing yesterday the VA Tech killer, and how the analysis always goes to 'crazy'. It's interesting that we have moved so far away from the much simpler solution: 'evil'. We tend not to hesitate to use this label in other situations: corporate or political misbehaviour, for example (Axis of Misguided, anyone?), but when someone does something that really very easily fits the traditional definition of true evil, we shy away from the term.

Could the use of "crazy" perhaps be because it is difficult to separate the act from the person? If the perpetrator was suffering from a mental illness, I'd hesitate to refer to him as "evil", as his actions may have largely been dictated by that illness. The crime, on the other hand, may be more accurately described as "evil". (Of course, IANAD, and I largely don't understand mental illness and how it shapes one's perceptions of the world, nor how much it overrides an understanding of right and wrong, or in this case good and evil.) The answer may be something else entirely. Perhaps the use of the word "crazy" is just a reflection of the need to understand why someone would do something of this nature. "Crazy" does have an element that implies mental instability, which at least for now seems like a more easily accepted explanation for why this happened. - Mara

This is something that I've been thinking about a lot over the past few days, mostly because it has parallels with my own work about mad people who commit violent crimes in the Middle Ages. What I find so interesting, regardless of whether or not Cho Seung-hui was, in fact, mentally ill, is the way that the media (and our society in general) seeks to create an acceptable and comprehensible narrative that allows us to "understand" why this happened, and the way that this so often ends up being expressed in terms of mental illness. I also find the recasting of the past so fascinating, as people re-evaluate all their interactions with Cho Seung-hui, seeking "signs". A BBC report notes that the "signs" were all there but no one acted on them. But, of course, the "signs" are actually relatively difficult to read without the benefit of hindsight. If every student who ever wrote "disturbing" fiction in a creative writing class, or stalked other students, or had counseling suggested to them, or were suspected of being suicidal was in some way restrained, that would surely be incredibly prejudicial over-reacting. I am struck by this also because my advisor once noted that studies show that only 1% of mentally ill people are capable of committing crimes, especially crimes of this magnitude, because most people who suffer from mental illness can't plan well enough. Again, I'm not trying to argue that there was nothing "wrong" with Cho Seung-hui. I'm just interested in the way that these narratives get created, and the way that we pick up on those elements of his life that help us explain his actions, and ignore those that don't. I find our need for these explanatory narratives fascinating, but I also fear that they can become dangerous, particularly when they influence policy.

I also find the recasting of the past so fascinating, as people re-evaluate all their interactions with Cho Seung-hui, seeking "signs".
My assumption about looking for "signs" is that people will then try to use these in an attempt to prevent a subsequent incident of the same type out of a (and misguided ?) desire to feel more "in control" by removing some of the randomness from life.
I find our need for these explanatory narratives fascinating, but I also fear that they can become dangerous, particularly when they influence policy.
This is of concern to me as well. The policy changes and new legislation passed since September 2001 seems to bear this out.
In this case, I'm trying to imagine what sorts of changes would be proposed in this case in an attempt to prevent another such incident. Changes to gun laws are an obvious proposal, and already the media have started reporting about politicians' views on gun laws.
But what other changes might people call for, claiming that they could have prevented this? Mental health or other profiles for all students, perhaps even making this a requirement for admission? Closing college & university campuses to everyone other than students and employees? Requiring tracking systems for college students that only allow students to access buildings when they have a class or during posted office hours for a professor with an office in that building?
One thing that seems to be easy to lose sight of after incidents such as this is that comparatively few people lose their lives in manners such as this, which is no doubt related to why this is so widely reported. In comparison, more than 100 people die in car accidents each day (per the NTSB), but there doesn't seem to be much call to reevaluate our transportation system and laws.

Generally speaking, I have a problem calling someone mentally ill just because they committed a horrible act. At least, mentally ill in so much as it is a generalized blanket media term. And looking for "signs" has never done anything to really prevent a repeat of actions that I've ever seen documented. And it isn't because the "troubled" kids didn't think about bringing guns to school until Columbine... I remember being on the school bus with a guy who brought a handgun with him. And it still goes on. You want to talk about signs... I meet several of those signs... minus stalking someone (and let's face it, anyone who's written chick lit falls into the disturbed writings category--and possibly the stalking one, too, but I digress, badly)... and I've thought about it... could I do something like this--what would it take for me to snap like that... and I come up blank. As do most people, I suspect; which brings us back to square one--what are the signs and symptoms so we can lock people up before they do anything at all... because that is where this is going. Let's ship them off to a relatively small island in the Atlantic before they MIGHT do or say something. I can't think of any precedent we might have for doing such a thing... it goes against our very concepts of Constitutionality, but I'm sure there is a way to circumvent it.

I was talking to this guy today and the idea of gun control came up regarding the Virginia Tech case. He said, predictably, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." He then said "I have a gun and I don't kill people." He then added, "I also have a permit to carry my gun on me concealed. I took a class to get the permit." I suddenly felt really disturbed but asked curiously (I mean, the guy might have had his gun) "Why do you need to carry a concealed weapon?" He answered, also amicably, "I can't carry it everywhere. I can't have in a stadium with more than 2,500 people in it. Also, I can only carry it with me to pick up my own children from school, I can't have it with me when I am picking up somebody else's children." And my head is still spinning from those comments. AHHH!!! -Lindsay

And here I thought you had to have a really good reason for getting a concealed weapons permit... of course, I don't have kids, so you might need one when you do and have to pick them up at school--who knew?!