By now, everyone and their mother has heard about the killings at Virginia Tech. It hits particularly close to home because one of the two Indians who died lived just down the street from my parents in Bombay. Funny how small the world is. Anyway, my issue right now is with the media’s portrayal of the suspected killer (I say suspected because he hasn’t been properly linked to the shootings though at this point it seems a mere formality). Supposed experts, pundits, psychologists and other “learned” persons have all commented on how South Korean Cho Seung-hui was a disturbed individual who hated the people around him. They say he was a loner, a stalker and a cold, calculating killer. Consider this quote from CNN:
“…Grewal had no idea how close he was to presence of pure hatred…”
In the days immediately following the massacre, the media was rife with such statements. There is no argument that Cho Seung-hui had his share of problems and that he committed a horrendous act. But in the aftermath of such an act, we should look inwards and question how a university student (of a family background that is generally tightly knit) arrived at a position where he thought mass killing was the answer. Critically, he was himself a victim in this disaster (suicide is a crime on the same level as homicide).
My first inkling that the media was manipulating the image of Cho Seung-hi came when I saw his picture. It’s practically a mug shot. They had various other resources to pull and yet they chose something that would convey a certain, negative connotation to the viewers. As a result, the general public saw not a young university student who had strayed down the path to disaster but a vicious killer.
Second, the media seems to constantly mention that Cho Seung-hui is South Korean. They consistently refer to him as a “South Korean at university in Virginia.” Let’s be clear, he moved from South Korea to the US with his parents when he was 8 years old. He is American and that’s that. His ethnicity has little consequence to what happened. Furthermore, how many times have you heard of South Korean students going on murderous sprees in their schools? None. The fact remains, this is an almost uniquely American occurrence.
Third. Whatever has happened, the boy is dead. There are age-old customs that dictate you do not desecrate the name of the dead. This is more than common courtesy, it is the essence of a civilized people. We shouldn’t be calling him an abomination. We should be looking at what good he had in his life and asking ourselves how they were overcome by destructive forces.
Fourth. The media emphasizes that he was a loner. Yet human beings are social creatures. Loners are generally a product of their environment. I was an undergrad not long ago and I can easily fathom how easy it is to feel alienated while at university. I personally knew people who were driven to despair because of name-calling, constant mental bullying and all manner of despicable social behavior at the hands of the elite. Society (and by that I mean those around Cho) are as much responsible for his condition as his parents and himself. Reports are now coming out about how he was taunted for being a loner.
Fifth. What of the bullies and tormentors? Every university has them. How must they feel now commenting to the news that he was a freak but secretly knowing inside that their snide remarks may have led to the massacre. Of course they’ll never talk, doing so would be admitting that they might be partially responsible and none of them have the balls, so to speak.
Cold, calculating killers do not kill themselves. They continue to kill believing they are superior to the rest of us, perhaps playing a game. People with no hope and awash in despair kill themselves because they see no light and no way forward. Is such a person a monster or a victim? Cho Seung-hui committed an unspeakable act and we were all partially responsible for it. He was both perpetrator and victim. Is it so hard to reconcile the two?
The media (and the arsenal of “experts”) should be ashamed of themselves for jumping to conclusions, speculating and libelous talk. It is not only a blatant attempt at sensationalism but a gross misrepresentation of facts before any proper evaluations have been done. Disgusting.
I have nothing but the deepest sympathies for the families of those who were lost. May you somehow find the strength to go on. Rest in peace to the dead, all of them. You are all tragic heroes in a sad, sad story.
UPDATE (23/AUG/07):
In transferring this story over to the new site, I did some more research and came across an interesting commentary which you can read HERE. It relates some of what Cho did to a Korean movie I saw a few months ago. The movie, Old Boy, is a really good watch if you don’t mind subtitles. Until now, I never put the two of them together, but the connection is pretty fascinating (the last screenshot shows one of Cho’s pictures photoshopped onto the Old Boy movie poster). You’d have to watch the movie, then reassess what they said about Cho’s mental state to know what I’m on about. If you do, give me a shout, I’d love to discuss over some drinks.
Popularity: 9% [?]
I really really really beg to differ on your analysis of this. When it first happened, I was curious to the reasons.
Take Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold from Columbine and that was 100% society driving them to their acts. They were both intelligent boys who were well-liked by the administration, but they were constantly harassed by the jock crowd who were never punished.
Reading about Cho Seung-hi and especially about his parents and grandparents comments on him, his teachers comments on him, and most importantly, reading his two plays, he comes off someone who is inherently, biologically, malicious.
His plays weren’t specifically violent and twisted. There is much other writing that is much more twisted, but there’s a difference. There is artistic merit to violence.
His writings weren’t violent, they were just mean. Outright -mean-. Being a writer myself, when I read it, it wasn’t so much that this is bad or gruesome or whatever, but there is no artistic quality to it and it is just a medium to spout out a bunch of hatred.
His English teacher said the same thing. She didn’t consider him to be violent, troubled, or disturbed, just downright mean.
I also read comments by his family. He had been diagnosed with (I believe) schizophrenia as a child, but being immigrant families, they had neither money nor time to help him. Otherwise, more than likely he would have been locked up in a mental institution, or at least, not allowed to ever own a firearm.
Personally, I don’t think this is by any means society’s fault. This was simply his genetics and a train wreck waiting to happen. The only way this could have been stopped was if he had been properly diagnosed and locked up early on, but that’s difficult to do.
Good God, a proper coherent comment, how rare are ye in these days of spam and trolling. You don’t have to beg Milan, I was hoping someone would take me up on this.
For starters I don’t believe people are inherently bad and therefore I don’t believe in genetic malice. I think all bad people are a product of their environment at some stage (perhaps even pre-natal).
I read his essays too and aside from thinking they weren’t of the highest quality English I agree they weren’t the most violent out there. At the same time, I didn’t think they were extraordinarily mean or anything… The lack of artitic merit could simply be he isn’t an accomplished writer… i.e. cannot articulate himself. Would you still think the same if the essays had been written better? Still I agree he was venting hatred in his writings.
I also have little faith in English teachers accurately reading a person’s character from some essays. The distinction between violent, troubled and mean is subtle. That’s a little unfair on my part because the teacher could very well be an excellent judge of character.
I haven’t yet heard of any reliable source saying he was schizoprenic, just heresay from the net. Too soon to say really, more information is forthcoming I’m sure. Sadly, it will all be in the current context and therefore it will be hard to reach an objective conclusion given his actions… in other words, you make the person fit the condition, instead of determining whether the condition would fit the person. Which incidentally is the basis of the presumption of innocence (not saying Cho is innocent, naturally, be he clearly is not).
As for his family, anyone familiar with South Korean culture would have easily predicted the response. I was a bit shocked that the family showed little to no support for him. In South Korean culture, however, saving face takes precedent over everything else. It doesn’t matter if someone or something is wrong, it is “forbidden” to enter into a situation that causes loss of face. As such, those around the family and indeed the family itself (although I don’t believe the mother and father themselves have spoken yet) would conceivably tow the “party-line” so to speak.
Being an immigrant family is not an excuse for no care. South Koreans are wealthy people when they come stateside (owing to the economic situation in the US and in Korea) and the immigration process in the US ensures the wealthiest are allowed over (by requiring proof of assets and so on).
Finally, most people are saying this could have been avoided. Either in between the first and second killings, earlier in the semester or indeed earlier in his life. This very admission must be logicall construed that society is at fault. Perhaps his parents are most at fault, perhaps not.
In any case, my issue was with jumping to conclusions. In no way do I want to suggest his actions are excusable. Ultimately, we are all responsible for our own actions… that doesn’t, however, infer a mutual exclusion of society from the process however.
Again, is that so hard to reconcile?
I think we’re forgetting the most important thing. The kid was a paranoid schizophrenic who made a break from reality and regressed into his alternative fantasy world in which he was a tortured martyr who had to bring justice to those oppressed like him. So basically, over and above all this loner, past life, nationality, bullying stuff is the plain and simple fact the the kid was diagnosed with a DSM-IV illness. He was nutters. Insane. Illogical. Unable to reason. Delusional. And none of this boils down to anything except that mental illness does not depend on colour, race, nationality, etc. It may depend on upbringing, if the patient’s suffered childhood traumas, but it’s most likely caused by chemical imbalances in the body.
At the end of the day, what the American media is trying to do, by coining such pathetic, sound-byte ready terms as “Multimedia Manifesto” etc. etc. is to create a story — make a monster out of a kid who slipped through the cracks of the American health care system. His actions are not excusable, but at least we can attribute them to a total mental break with reality, whereas we cannot excuse the actions of Klebold and Harris. They were very aware of their actions, and there’s no way BOTH of them were paranoid delusional schizophrenics with such a perfectly orchestrated crime.
What America is looking for a way to make sense of the tragedy. And in typical fashion, it’s by playing the blame game and making the kid out to be a hateful, immigrant monster “Other.” (Here is my postcolonial theoretical understanding of it.)
Find peace by accepting the fact that Cho Seung-Hui was in a complete state of mental fugue when he went about this, and that we cannot make sense out of something that was committed irrationally. We just need to accept it as a tragedy. If Americans still want to blame someone, they should blame the U.S. healthcare system for privileging the privileged, for putting its mental patients in jails instead of giving them a bed in a psych ward. For not putting enough resources into helping people like Cho get medication and therapy before they become a danger to themselves and those around them.
Yes — stats show that a psych ward bed costs 500 bucks a night to maintain and a jail bed 89. Because psych wards are non-profit making endeavours for American HMOs, since mental illness is a lifelong disease with no cure, psych wards around the U.S. are being closed, and the patients either turned out, or put in jail, where they will be safe from hurting people. Cool, huh. Just because they’re mental means they criminals. Guess how many currently incarcerated people are mentally ill? One in six. That’s right.
For more information on schizophrenia, read the book “Crazy” written by Pete Earley, who was told by U.S. HMOs, when he took his steadily deteriorating schozophrenic son into an emergency room for help, that they could not do anything until his son attacked someone else and Early filed a police report. Visit:
http://www.peteearley.com/home/
For more info on mentally ill prisoners being held in U.S. prisons, visit:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003…2/ usdom6472.htm
Oh, and to get a starter guide to understanding schizophrenia, read this stub. These were exactly the symptoms that Cho Seung-Hui manifested. He deteriorated over time, and without proper medical attention, until his parallel delusional world subsumed his reality. This is quite common amongst schizophrenics who do not receive treatment. After a point, they make a complete and permanent break with reality and regress fully into a fugue state. Here’s the Wiki stub:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch…i/ Schizophrenia
An informed pair of posts ChapatiKid. While I haven’t heard officially that he was schizo (I have stopped searching to be fair) it does seem to be the case. Is schizophrenia a legitmate reason to claim mental insanity as a defense in court?
The fact that so many mentally ill people end up incarcerated instead of admitted into care is a societal failing… well most likely a legislative and economic failing originally but it comes back to the same issue. How does it work in Canadia? I suppose they could send the loonies to live in igloos really.
I take it you agree with the post then, that we are all partially at fault? And that Cho’s name was basically manhandled by the media?
Highly appropriate use of “subsumed” and “fugue.” The latter especially. I do envy you writers. Now fugue off. Ahahahaha, I’m so clever.
The problem here is not society by any means. While we can claim that society should have been able to detect him and stop before this happened, there’s problems with privacy and freedom.
Cho had been required to see a psychiatrist after he had stalked two female classmates. However, they didn’t want to press charges and Cho refused medication. The doctor can only force a person to be hospitalized or forced to take medication if the doctor feels that the patient is a threat to himself or others (via the Baker’s Act … which I know from personal experience). The problem is, at this point, Cho had not presented -any- violent tendencies, and there was therefore the law couldn’t really do anything at all. Furthermore, he was over eighteen, so his parents couldn’t do anything at this point even if they wanted to. The only thing that could have happened is if he was medicated and helped early in his life. By this point, it was already too late.
I don’t believe it was spur of the moment, due to a state of mental fugue, because he had this planned weeks in advance. First of all, Virginia only allows the purchase of one handgun per month. He had two which he purchased legally four weeks apart. (On the same note, had he been properly diagnosed, he would not have passed the background check and not have been allowed to purchase a handgun.) When he went on his spree, he brought heavy chains to lockdown the buildings so his intended victims couldn’t escape. Lastly, handguns are not accurate by any means. Furthermore, a .22 is a small round and will only kill when hit at short range and at the right spots. I rad he spent time at the range practicing; he also knew exactly what he was doing.
My personal opinion is the reason this tragedy happened is not because he was harassed as a child (actually I found college to be very friendly and accessible to anybody if people can get over their own opinions of themselves and other people), but rather because, one of two things:
1) Either his mental problems didn’t surface until later in his years, and as no one knew him well, it was difficult to calibrate them with how he should be, and therefore at this point it was too late to do anything until he made a violent outburst.
2) His problems -did- surface early on, but his parents either didn’t notice or didn’t have the time and energy to do anything; his high school didn’t notice and downplayed the seriousness of it.
And also, lastly, the one chance that the system had, when he had to see a doctor, and the doctor had the opportunity to put it on his permanent record, the system failed.
Furthermore, and this is on a tangent, UVA had two years before decided that even students with concealed-carry permits and proper tactical miliary/police training could not bring their handguns onto school property. Had there even been one student who legally had a concealed weapon, the massacre would most likely have been stopped before it caused so much damage.
Ahhh Milan you closet NRA supporter, I was waiting for the “bearing arms” can reduce crime plug! The issue of gun control is convoluted in the States so I wont touch upon it (yet).
So… you know the Baker’s act from personal experience huh… listen I’m a friend right, I mean before you go ballistic you’ll let me know right? I love life Milan, please don’t take it away from me! Ahahahahaha.
It certainly wasn’t a spur of the moment attack and Cho certainly had plenty of time to plan out the massacre. Indeed handguns are quite inaccurate, and .22’s quite useless at any significant distance. I imagine 32 killings could not be done if people were running around. It would have to be done with the victimes still (cowering in fear) and execution style.
You mentioned no one knew him well enough. His parents might not have had the time or noticed his behavior (and since he was above 18, might not have been able to do anything anyway). His school downplayed the seriousness of it. And finally that the system failed to place him into care. All of these sound like failings of the community to protect their own, Cho included. Ergo, I say it is also society’s failing.
Interestingly, I think this might also be a cultural question. I tend to think that the community should know about its members and should look out for its own like some extended family. An extension of village life almost. For example in India the parents can interfere in their children’s lives at any point (even if the child is an adult) and affect change (whether by community pressure or court action). There is no law prohibiting this and the consensus is that none is needed as culture and customs are the prime Policers of society. In the states, the opposite is true. Almost every conceivable action has some inane law related to it (on a tangent, how can a country be considered the most free when it has the most laws and most complex legal system? Food for thought what? Iraq is probably the most free country on the planet today, low!). Individualism tends to reign supreme in the States, however, and certainly, many feel that they are totally isolated from events that may happen around the corner from them. Neither is necessarily a better system, they’re just different (as cultures are).
I still think it is society’s failing but I can see where you are coming from Milan. After all, this took place in the States and when in Rome…
But no guns on campus you lunatic!
Yes, I am an NRA supporter. I like my rights.
As for the Baker’s Act, when I was 17, I was Baker Act’ed for an attempted suicide, but that’s the past, and irrelevant.
It’s easy to say society should have noticed, society should have cared, yada yada. The problem is, society can only do so much.
I read a comment by a father who had a schizophrenic son and wanted the child properly treated. The police said they could not do anything until the child lashed out.
That’s the problem. While there were signs, there was -no- history, and to start locking up people due or forcing them to take medication or whatever, simply on beliefs, is quite a dangerous road to go down. Often schools will recommend counseling or psychiatric treatment, but this is voluntary and expensive. Insurance generally won’t cover such treatment.
In Cho’s case, given what they knew, society had no right to do -anything- at all. Furthermore, also from experience, I know that psychiatrists aren’t always right. Proper treatment can take years of trial and error to get right.
I honestly don’t think there was anything that could have been to prevent Cho from going on his rampage.
As for gun rights, here’s an editorial from the Washington Times:
Specifically, pay attention to the parts in bold.
——
Trail of travail
By Pierre Lemieux
April 24, 2007
Virginia Tech (Blacksburg), Columbine (Colorado), Polytechnique (Canada), Dunblane (Scotland), Jonesboro (Arkansas), Nickel Mines (Pennsylvania), and Dawson College (Canada). What do these tragic mass killings of students and school children have in common? The answer is not obvious.
What is obvious, to those of us who look beyond the headlines, is that mass killings were rare when guns were easily available, but have increased as guns have become more controlled.
In the early 20th century, guns were easily available to ordinary people in all civilized countries, including England, Canada, the United States, and France. In many cases, individuals could freely carry them concealed. But all that changed.
Scotland’s 1996 Dunblane massacre, for example, which claimed the lives of 16 children, occurred in a country where, after seven decades of increasing gun controls, it had become very difficult for ordinary citizens to own guns, especially handguns, and illegal to carry them virtually anywhere.
Similarly, the 2006 Dawson College shootings in Canada occurred after 15 years of increasingly rigid gun controls, making it illegal to bear arms even on your own property. In the United States, where the majority of the shooting tragedies have occurred, federal gun controls have increased nearly continuously since the 1960s.
None of the massacres was committed by people who were legally allowed to have guns where they committed their crimes, with many of the killings occurring in government-mandated “gun-free zones.”
The truth, as the tragedy in Blacksburg reminds us, is that it is impossible to be totally protected by the police against criminal maniacs, except by turning society into a prison. There is one important question, though. What if some students or professors had been armed at Virginia Tech, a school where guns are banned?
Interestingly, a bill that would have allowed students and employees to carry handguns on Virginia campuses was defeated in the state General Assembly earlier this year. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker hailed the defeat: “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.” Now what?
When asked at a press conference after the killings what can be done to ensure campus security, Virginia Tech President Charles Steger indicated there is no way to place a police guard in every classroom or dormitory. That’s so true.
But contrast the horrific Virginia Tech shootings with the January 2002 killings at Virginia’s Appalachian Law School. Within minutes of shooting three people in the dean’s office, disgruntled student Peter Odighizuwa was stopped by two students who had retrieved handguns from their cars. They disarmed the killer and turned him over to the police.
Obviously, when people are intent on massacring defenseless students, there is no sure panacea. Yet, there must be a reason why such killings haven’t occurred at places like the University of Utah, where people licensed to carry guns can bring them on campus, including university buildings. There might be a reason why the Dawson College killer, who had a car and apparently no special reason to target that specific school, did not go instead to the National Police School, about 100 miles from Montreal, where all students are armed.
We need to take a broader view. Something other than the low probability of being stopped before doing much damage must be at play. Some decades ago, most people, including unruly youths, and perhaps even most criminals, were under certain moral constraints that they were ashamed to break. Since that time, these constraints have crumbled, replaced by post-modernist nihilism and the heavy hand of government.
There have always been self-deluded maniacs who, in order to seek solace and fame, wage destruction. Such was Herostratus who, in 356 B.C., and precisely for this reason, burned the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, one of the Seven Wonders of the World. However, I seriously doubt he would have killed schoolchildren or young women, even if he had the power to do so.
Man I wanna be Baker Act’d just so people can say, “That nigga was Baker Act’d fool.”
Like you, I have little faith in psychologists and their practice in general so I agree, it is a dangerous road to go down when you can put people in institutions without being completely sure there is a problem. I’d want to advocate family healing and the like beforehand.
In Cho’s case, what society has a right to do (and not to do) is determined by society itself. You claim society did not have a right to interfere (which is also supported by US law) and since you are a part of US society (while I am not) I have to defer to you. Personally, I think society should have interfered (whether it be school doctors, his parents, friends, etc) but this would require a change in public thinking in the US and naturally a change to society. You are correct in that society cannot be held responsible for events/actions if society does not believe they should be or could be responsible.
And classic bait and switch with the gun control article. You’ve whetted my appetite, I’m going to write something up that you probably will disagree with.
Okay, here’s my question then:
If society should have interfered with his life when he had done nothing wrong yet, what is the line that must be crossed for society to institutionalize someone against their will.
Once again, if someone can be institutionalized against his will when he has not shown himself to be a danger to anyone, we are giving society (and more importantly the government) a massive amount of unchecked power.
Well… it does reek of a system reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984, or for a more contemporary reference, Minority Report and pre-crime… a very scary prospect indeed depending on how you look at it.
I’m not in favor of granting the government the power to incarcerate of institutionalize someone based on a hunch or whim. Not in the slightest. When I say society interfering, I mean family and friends actively becoming involved in Cho’s affairs and life in the hope some change can be affected.
As far against one’s will… tricky question. Ideally you’d want some kind of balance. On the one hand you might want to wait until a person has proven himself a danger to himself/others while on the other, if you jump the gun what if you falsely imprison him/her.
Can’t be perfect either way though. Some will slip through the cracks and kill others (like Cho) while some will be institutionalized when they are actually normal. Still, I think society has some responsibility in the matter and when the system fails, some fault. It may be easy for me to say society has to accept some of the blame but it’s a lot easier to say society has absolutely nothing to do with it, innit?
I’ve actually sort of lost track of why I posted the article in the first place. I believe I was trying to attack the frivolent media. And aren’t you supposed to be coding? Bastard, getting paid to engage in profound discussions about the limits of society. I want to be in your shoes.
actually, i think it’s easier to blame something else than it is to blame the perpetrator, especially when the perpetrator is dead.
it’s why parents are calling for the resignation of the president, even though he did nothing wrong, and campus security acted as best as they could, with they knowledge they did. People in grieving need something physical to blame, rather than “it is genetics, it was a trainwreck waiting to happen, sorry your kid got in the way”. it’s the same reason why when a experience skydiver dies, everyone looks at something to blame (the rigger, the pilot, the weather, the gear, anything) rather than the jumper made a mistake or it was bad luck and shit happens.
As for what I do here. Engaging in this profound discussion is the most productive thing I’ve done all day.
I don’t know if that explains it as well as I want. What I mean to say is society, and especially victims and victims’ families, want to (by human nature, during grieving) place the blame on someone or something that can pay the consequences.
For example: This wouldn’t have been so bad if campus security acted quicker. This wouldn’t have happened if the doctor who saw him last had placed a mark on his background test. (I’m just waiting to see the families of the victims file a lawsuit against the doctor.)
Actually interesting point. The blame game is certainly being played out now and grieving folk always look to place the blame subconsciously even though they might not want to explicitly. I myself don’t see how the president of the university is at fault but the people in charge always take the heat even if it’s actually unwarranted.
I’m torn now. I feel society is partially at fault. At the same time, it certainly is easy to blame everybody else except for the dead killer. In the immediate aftermath of the killings, the media definitely was all over Cho, the “disturbed South Korean murderer.” The tide seems to be switching to blaming everyone else now. I was initially concerned at jumping to conclusions suggesting that it was wiser to do the investigation, look at the facts, history and then make an informed decision. As these proceedings get underway (and conclude) the story will become clearer and clearer and perhaps Cho is the only one at fault. Perhaps not.
Is there a middle ground we can meet at? Cho is certainly at fault. I think his parents are at fault too, he was their child after all (even though he was an adult). Security may have botched up but in a different way. I think shootings on a campus should result in the closure of the entire facility. I don’t think security could have avoided the incident either way, though, Cho had a well thought out plan. I don’t think university policy or the president are at fault, how can you really plan for this type of eventuality?
As for society in general? Well in the grander scheme of things, should we strive to be more informed and perhaps more compassionate in dealing with the mentally ill (befriending them, healing them, avoiding disasters, etc)?
I agree the media was all over the South Korean murderer. When it first broke news, I expected it to be similar to Columbine, where he had been driven to it by years of harassment. However, upon reading more, this was not the case.
His roommates had tried to talk to him; they had tried to get him out of his shell. People in his classes say they tried to talk to him. He never responded. He wanted to be left alone. Even when his teacher gave roll call, he wouldn’t respond. All he did was put a sheet up with a question mark on it as his name.
There is not much society can do when the person offers so little. As he hadn’t acted out on anything worse than stalking a few girls, which at that age isn’t completely abnormal, everything could be explained by a really sad, depressed, loner kid. His teachers and his classmates did not have a history with him to know him any different.
As for his parents, remember parents are humans too. They don’t know what they’re doing when they’re raising kids. They’re just doing the best they can. Now, take immigrant parents from an Eastern (ie: conservative) culture trying to raise children in a Western (ie: liberal) culture. There is a major culture clash, and they might not have known what they could do. Add to that, with what I’ve read, is that his family was working class. There is no way in hell a working class family can afford to pay for psychiatric treatment, and even less so if he needs to be inpatient, where the costs can rise up to $500 a day.
The parents hands were tied. It’s one thing if the kid was depressed. All depression needs is counseling. I don’t think the kid was depressed. His writings don’t show sadness, they show anger and malice, but they I don’t even think it was conscientious anger.
I don’t think the kid fully realized what it was he was feeling, just that that’s how he felt.
Diseases of the brain do some weird things to you, and logic plays no role whatsoever, which is really difficult to treat, especially by people who aren’t trained in it.
Have you ever known someone who is suicidal and tried to tell them to smile or turn that frown upside-down everything’s really not that bad? It doesn’t work. The suicidal person can logically understand that he shouldn’t be suicidal, but he still is. It’s a chemical imbalance in the brain and there’s nothing he can do about it except slowly get through it. Telling the suicidal person to stop being sad only makes him worse because now he begins thinking what’s wrong with him. It’s a circular thought process that makes no logical sense, but its there. (This I know from experience.)
I can only imagine what schizophrenia would do the brain. Actually, I know that as well from bad acid trips.
The kid was in trouble, but more than likely, he couldn’t speak to his parents, because of the culture difference, for some reason never made any friends that he could rely on, and in the end, he just got worse and worse and worse.
As for locking the school down, they didn’t need to. Cho already did. Locking the school down would only work if the killer had already killed his intended target and was now trying to escape. In the VT shootings, this was not the case. Locking down the school would have actually helped Cho because he wanted to kill everybody.
In the end, this was an extremely tragic event that I don’t think could have been stopped. The system worked as it should have. The problem was, the system always has cracks, and somehow, he managed to slip through every one of them, unintentionally, of course.
While it would be nice if society could detect these kind of people and treat them before they go too far, I can’t imagine how this could be done, without having a large number of false positives.
And this country stands by: It is better to let a thousand criminals go free than to imprison one innocent man.
I agree with that.
At the end, the only thing that could have saved even a few lives is if the law-abiding student population was allowed to arm themselves, since the criminal population obviously doesn’t care whether or not they’re allowed.
Take a quote from Robert A. Heinlein:
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Good discussion, y’all. Nothing could have been done to stop this. By the way, losing control of reality and going permanently into a fugue state doesn’t happen overnight. Most likely, he started slipping away a year before, and it reached its exacerbation point around the time he planned the murders. Sure, he bought the guns through lawful means. Just because you’re paranoid schizophrenic, doesn’t mean you go around pooping your pants in public and don’t live or appear to live like a functioning member of society. It’s not like all of them walk around on the streets flailing their arms around madly and leaving a trail of stink behind them.
And yes, speaking about the parental responsibility thing… Milan, I don’t know what culture you come from, but in most Eastern cultures, the concept of psychiatry/psychotherapy is not only not dicsussed, but is frowned upon. If you tell people you’re going for therapy, they automatically assume that you’re a nutter. There’s also the possibility that his parents simply couldn’t afford the hefty medical expenses it involved, since, after all, there’s no nationalized health care in the Unites States. Add to that the fact that mental illness was not in their vocabulary (figuratively speaking), and you have a disaster on your hands.
On the other hand, maybe his parents never knew. According to published research, paranoid schizophrenia, when it does appear in males, appears in early adulthood, around the age of 17 or 18. This might mean that Cho had left home and went to college by then. So prior to that, his early symptoms of mental illness might have been interpreted as sullenness and introversion, which is what his college friends thought. Extreme introversion, blanketed emotions, etc. are classic symptoms of withdrawal from reality.
Society’s fault? The college’s fault? Well, I think the administration did as much as it could to help the student, but if you’re mentally ill and you refuse medication, then I think there’s a problem of a Catch-22 there. If you’re schizophrenic, then you don’t have the rational judgement to accept medication which will make you better. And if you don’t accept the medication, it will make you worse. In his case, he probably didn’t think there was anything wrong with him, because his irrational world made as much sense to him as his rational world, if not more. Should he have been forced to take it? Absolutely, especially considering that the doctors evaluating him believed him to be a threat. Is it an infraction of civil rights? Absolutely, at the cost of saving the patient’s life, as well as others’ lives, as we saw. As for a 1984/totalitarian scenario, I think that’s being a bit cycnical. The medical profession takes a Hippocratic oath to save lives. I doubt that if doctors are given the right to administer medicine to a patient they believe to be harmful to society, in order to “normalize” the patient as a functioning member of society, this means that doctors are suddenly going to abuse those rights and use them to create some Prozac-numbed nation. Oh wait. That’s happened even without doctors being given rights. It’s happened VOLUNTARILY. So what’s the big difference if the medical profession actually helps the people who DO need help? I hope that made sense.
Finally, the NRA is my pet peeve. They all bandy about the whole “right to bear arms”. For crying out loud, that was written in the constitution some two hundred years ago, and frankly, it doesn’t apply today. You no longer live in a country in which you have to take the law into your own hands because there’s a civil war at your doorstep, and because you have to leave your helpless wives and home while you run through cannon fire. There are cellphones and landlines and the internet and pagers if you want to get help. I think the only people who should be allowed to bear arms are hunters and farmers. And if you’re arguing that a Canadian conducted a shootout in Montreal despite the law against firearms, I think you might want to compare the ratio of gun-related deaths in both conutries. Or more specifically, compare the ratio of gun-related school deaths in both countries.
RE: Canada and mental health. Well, I must admit that there have been some changes in healthcare ever since the privatization option came in, but Canadian health care runs along the same principles as Scandinavian health care. Sweden and the Netherlands are primarily the model. I had to study a comparison when I was at uni in the States, and I think that was when I decided that I loved Canada. Here we do have government-run facilities for mental health patients, but I can’t vouch for their quality. What I do know is that Canada pays for 100% of hospital and physician care, but not as high for prescription drugs. Under the universal health care law, though, a Canadian citizen MUST be enrolled under a provincial prescription drug plan if they do not have employee health care coverage.
Wow, good discussion and lots-o-comments.
I worked in the mental health industry for about 7 years before giving up that flakey “science” for mechanical engineering. (and yes, engineers have there own personality disorders.)
This included about 4 years working directly with adults with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder and depression with psychosis. In general, people with these disorders are more of a danger to themselves than others. I never had a patient act out violently toward anyone but him/herself.
That said, I know it still happens, but I think it’s the minority. Someone mentioned the Baker Act and you can only hold someone for 72 hours unless a judge deems them to be a danger to themselves or others. That’s not an easy thing to convince the legal system.
We all have free will and being bullied as a child doesn’t make us ALL psychotic or violent as adults. This guy’s issues seem more than likely to be more nature than nurture. I was bullied, and managed to extinguish it in Jr. High with a few roundhouse kicks to the head and a viscous tongue….and I’m completely normal now
As far as gun control goes, I believe that this situation, like columbine, is one of the few where it would be valuable, useful, and possible to effectively use a concealed weapon. I changed a lot of my belief system on control after being robbed at gunpoint in 1998. There’s no way that in my situation, I could have quick-draw-McGrawed a gun like Jack Bauer on 24, and had anything good happen. However, amidst the chaos of the mob shooting at VATech and Columbine, where there’s more time, I believe it could be valuable to have an easily accessible gun to take the shooter out.
edit to my comment: Please replace “there” with “their” in reference to engineers having their own personality disorders (and poor spelling)…. horrible spelling and proofreading on my part!
Jennugus! I hadn’t realized you worked with loonies for a while. Interesting comment, “giving up that ‘flakey science’…” Hahaha, I feel much the same.
Milan seems to be on the same page as you, apparently the Baker Act is too weak to really be effective. Perhaps rightly so, we wouldn’t want people just randomly being institutionalized.
You roundhoused someone… to the head no less? Hmmm. Suddenly, I’m intimidated. Still, I disagree about the nature/nurture thing. I think its a nurture question as opposed to nature. Course, they guy is dead and I don’t believe in any conlusions on a person’s mental state that are reached once said person is deceased.
So I’m not entirely convinced with yours and Milan’s comments but it has made me think. On besmirching a killer though, you must agree, the media was wanton disabandon initially.
Chapati Kid (my little roti!), I think you took a piece of everyone in your last post Very true that doctors are giving Prozac and Xanax to anybody they can these days. Kids get all kinds of ADD drugs for no real reason.
If anything, I think some folow up articles are in order, namely one of gun-control (fitting since it will be an election issue in the US) and the other on whether society can or should have the ability to incarcerate/institutionalize before any damage has occurred… the concept of pre-crime essentially (to use Minority Report lingo).
Should be interesting, Milan has experience with the Baker Act and gun control (being quite an accomplished gun owner), Jennugus has experience with the loonies and gun-point robberies and Chapati Kid experiences the effects of gun control daily in “safe” Canada. As for me, I’ve none of the aforementioned experiences. I like guns but support gun control. I don’t want any infringement on freedom or rights but the pre-crime thing is alluring. I like big breasts and small breasts. It’s quite a conundrum.
BBC article on the back of the report into the shootings. Interestingly, blame (actually a much softer word was used) was placed on the Virginia Tech security force, the school administration and some of the counselors involved. You can see the article here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6969842.stm
I like big breasts, small breasts, fake breasts, real breasts. Mmmmmm. Breasts.