| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
What about the really bad man?
-- By CameronLewis - 16 Feb 2012 | |
<
< | -- Revised - 27 Mar 2012 | >
> | -- Revised - 20 July 2012 | | |
The Really Bad Man | |
<
< | "Will I be executed for what I have done?" asked Anders Breivik just after surrendering to police for the mass murder of 77 people in Norway this past July. Holmes writes, by way of introduction to the space between law and morality, that to understand law alone one must adopt the perspective of the bad man. The bad man cares only for the material consequences of his actions, his behavior guided by the risk of state punishment through fines, imprisonment, or execution. But what about those individuals who go far beyond that threshold? What about those who disregard not only moral codes, but legal ones as well in pursuit of their goals? I am talking about the really bad man. | >
> | "Will I be executed for what I have done?" asked Anders Breivik just after surrendering to police for the mass murder of 77 people in Norway this past July. Holmes writes, by way of introduction to the space between law and morality, that to understand law alone one must adopt the perspective of the bad man. The bad man cares only for the material consequences of his actions, his behavior guided by the risk of state punishment through fines, imprisonment, or execution. But what about those individuals who go far beyond that threshold? What about those who disregard not only moral codes, but legal ones as well in pursuit of their goals? | | | | |
<
< | The really bad man, like the bad man, cares not at all for individual or societal morality. Unlike the bad man, however, he denies the state its punitive power and refuses to consider the legal consequences of his actions. This denial can take the form of a symbolic act, a violent tragedy, declaring to the world that it has no power over him and culminating in suicide or arrest. | >
> | The really bad man, like the bad man, cares not at all for individual or societal morality. Unlike the bad man, however, he denies the state its punitive power and refuses to be cowed by the legal consequences of his actions. This denial can take the form of a symbolic act, a violent tragedy, declaring to the world that it has no power over him and culminating in suicide or arrest. | | | | |
<
< | In the aftermath, it is inevitably settled that the really bad man’s final act emerged from some kind of extreme desperation or mental illness. How else can their actions be explained? Behavior so far outside human norms is plausibly mental illness in itself, especially when the only evidence is the end result. When the really bad man has a history of mental health issues, or provides such a history through documentation, it is easy to point to insanity as the underlying cause. Despite this conclusion, the aggregate societal response is an attempt to cope with the loss, to adequately reconcile the illusion of order with its apparent failure. | >
> | In the aftermath, it is inevitably settled that the really bad man’s final act emerged from some kind of extreme desperation or mental illness. How else can their actions be explained? Behavior so far outside human norms is plausibly mental illness in itself, especially when the only evidence is the end result. When the really bad man has a history of mental health issues, it is easy to end the inquiry there and accept insanity as the underlying cause. Regardless, the aggregate societal response is an attempt to cope with the loss, to adequately reconcile the illusion of order with its apparent failure. | | | The Societal Response | |
<
< | The storm of speculation and scrutiny that results is a process of collective rationalization that serves to apportion responsibility among all involved. The need for answers drives the societal goal of finding someone or something blameworthy, thereby relieving the shared burden and reducing any nagging hint of complicity. Such is what happened at Virginia Tech on April 16th, 2007, when Cho Seung-hui killed 32 students and then himself. Within hours, the nonstop media coverage featured innumerable analysts filling the void of actual information with righteous and provocative demands on the administration, the police, and the ‘system’. Yet the answer is evident: the person ultimately responsible remains the one who pulled the trigger. | >
> | The resulting storm of speculation and scrutiny is a process of collective rationalization that serves to apportion responsibility among all involved. The need for answers drives the societal goal of finding someone or something blameworthy, thereby relieving the shared burden and reducing any nagging hint of complicity. Such is what happened at Virginia Tech on April 16th, 2007, when Cho Seung-hui killed 32 students and then himself. Within hours, the nonstop media coverage featured innumerable analysts filling the void of actual information with righteous and provocative demands on the administration, the police, and the ‘system’. Powerlessness against the actor drives a search for other targets, but the person ultimately responsible remains the one who pulled the trigger. | | | | |
<
< | Their underlying insanity—whether established through medical diagnosis, past behavior, or ex post facto—serves as explanation and possible excuse. A successful defense on grounds of insanity may mitigate the legal penalty, or provide for alternate indefinite treatment in a mental health facility, but it does nothing for the sense of loss and antipathy felt by society at large. | >
> | Their underlying insanity—whether established through medical diagnosis, past behavior, or ex post facto—serves as explanation and possible excuse. A successful defense on grounds of insanity may mitigate the legal consequences, or provide for indefinite treatment in a state mental health facility, but it does nothing for the sense of loss and antipathy felt by society at large. | | | | |
<
< | To salve that wound, the storm continues. So it was with the legal system, when precious outrage was directed at a judge who let someone slip through the cracks. So it was with the police, when they mistakenly assumed that the first shooting was an isolated incident. And so it was with the administration, when their apparent failure to communicate with students under existing policies preceded the second shooting. Never mind the benefit of hindsight; the altar of public opinion requires a lamb. | >
> | To salve that wound, the storm continues. So it was with the legal system, when a judge who was powerless to compel Cho let him slip through the cracks. So it was with the police, when they mistakenly assumed that the first victim's volatile boyfriend was the right suspect. And so it was with the administration, when their failure to inform students of the first shooting or cancel classes quickly enough preceded the second shooting. Never mind the benefit of hindsight; the altar of public opinion requires a lamb. | | | | |
<
< | Of course there were crucial lapses and failures that contributed, and responsibility moving forward should rightly fall to those in a position to fix those problems and prevent recurrences. The goal of that process is often achieved: to build the walls higher and make it harder for those same weaknesses to be exploited again. But considering the presumption of personal liberty in our society, these efforts can hardly prevent the next determined really bad man. An individual, dwarfed by the power of the state, nullifies that power by denying its coercive effect. | >
> | Of course there were crucial lapses or failures that played a role in the outcome, and responsibility should rightly fall to those with the power to prevent recurrences. Progress is often achieved, building the walls higher and preventing those same weaknesses from future exploitation. But considering the presumption of personal liberty in our society, these efforts can hardly prevent the next determined really bad man. | | | | |
<
< | Whatever deterrence value institutionalized power has over the rest of us is lost against he who seeks to prove himself above that authority. Either they end their own lives in a final act of defiance or, like Breivik, they bask in the revilement and attention, seeking execution by the state as final retroactive validation. Above all, the labeling of the really bad man as insane is what he seeks to avoid. For Breivik, it is a slander, an attempt to delegitimize his convictions and final, irrefutable proof that he will not be a hero and will not be taken seriously. | >
> | Whatever deterrence value institutionalized power has over the rest of us is lost against he who seeks to prove himself above state authority. Either they end their own lives in a final act of defiance or, like Breivik, they bask in the revilement and attention, seeking execution by the state as final retroactive validation of their tortured worldview. Society's labeling of the really bad man as insane undercuts their delusions of grandeur and righteousness. For Breivik, such a label is slander, an attempt to delegitimize his convictions and distort the true nobility of his cause. Ultimately, it is a repudiation of his grand ambition, forced to realize that he will not die worshiped as a hero but alone: discredited, reviled, and insane. | | | What is the Solution? | |
<
< | The solutions to these problems are identifiable, and much of the value in the process of recovery is in identifying those concrete steps that can be taken. The public consensus eventually settles on those responsible. Across the country, a relatively inexpensive fix: universities and other institutions have installed notification systems able to inform students immediately of any emergency. But the broader problems persist. Enforcement and extension of existing gun control regulations is zealously resisted through a Revolutionary interpretation of the second amendment, and an overhaul of the mental health system remains far down anyone’s list of priorities. Those obvious answers are unattainable in the short term, and their distance limits their value as salve to societal wounds. We are left wanting more. | >
> | The steps required for progress are identifiable, and much of the value in recovery is in identifying those concrete ways that our safety and security can be improved. The public consensus eventually settles on those who should be held responsible. Across the country, a relatively inexpensive fix: universities and other institutions have installed notification systems able to inform students immediately of any emergency. But the broader problems persist. Enforcement and extension of existing gun control regulations is zealously resisted through a Revolutionary interpretation of the Second Amendment, and an overhaul of the mental health system remains far down any politician's list of priorities. Those obvious answers are unattainable in the short term, and beyond that it becomes more difficult to realize progress.
The beauty of our idealized system of government rests in the underlying virtues of liberty and personal freedom despite constant encroachment. In the face of that freedom, a really bad man, mentally ill or sane, will always be able to find the means and opportunity to orchestrate their final act. The inadequacy of the legal system in the face of such individuals is mirrored by that same failure in all other forms of social control. In the end, the really bad man is not one who has rejected only the legal system, but society entirely. Once that alienation is complete, he identifies as a true outsider, observing the workings of a society that has rejected him and plotting a grand revenge. | | | | |
<
< | The beauty of our idealized system of government rests in the underlying virtues of liberty and personal freedom despite constant encroachment. In the face of that freedom, a really bad man, mentally ill or sane, will always be able to find the means and opportunity to orchestrate their final act. The inadequacy of the legal system in the face of such individuals is mirrored by that same failure in all other forms of social control. In the end, the really bad man is not one who has rejected only the legal system, but society entirely. Once that alienation is complete, his final act is simply a question of when. | | | | |
<
< | (974) | | | Commentary
24 Apr 2012 |
|