The tragedy in Arizona has haunted this nation for two weeks. A man takes a gun and goes into a crowd where a U.S. Representative is meeting with her constituents. He shoots her and many others, leaving six dead.
There were a lot of victims from that event, but there is one nobody dares talk about — the shooter himself.
Jared Loughner, the 22-year-old man who did the shooting, apparently suffers from a psychotic disorder, possibly schizophrenia. How the courts will deal with his condition and the shooting as a legal matter remains to be seen.
We don’t know yet if Loughner had ever undergone psychiatric evaluation, or if he was receiving medication, or if perhaps he had fallen through the cracks and had never received any kind of help. Since schizophrenia mostly emerges from the mid-teens through the early 20s, it’s entirely possible that his friends and family didn’t fully understand that his litany of bizarre behavior was due to a serious mental illness.
Whatever we learn about his condition, the reaction to the shootings by far-left media about Loughner’s actions was among the most disgusting comments I’ve ever heard. Led by the liberal New York Times, the far-left quickly blamed the shootings on what it sees as hate speech by conservative politicians on the right.
According to the mantra of the far-left, the Arizona shootings were the result of undue hate fomented by the right, especially politicians like Sarah Palin who has been crucified on this issue by the left. In their view, Loughner’s actions were kindled by the right and were the result of political, not medical problems.
While there is much room to debate the nature of political discourse in the country from both the left and right, for anyone to link this shooting tragedy to political commentary is simply vile and unworthy of the kind of public discussion that has taken place in recent days.
What would the New York Times write, for example, if Loughner had said he heard the voice of Obama telling him to do the shooting? Of course the NYT would view that as simply a man with serious mental problems; they certainly wouldn’t blame Obama.
But can you imagine what the far-left would say if Loughner had told investigators he heard the voice of Sarah Palin telling him to do the shooting? The left would go crazy, pointing to that as evidence of the right’s complicity in mass murder.
Of course, neither is true. Loughner is mentally ill and his reasons for doing the shootings are unclear. Whatever voices he heard were disconnected with any reality and were not political. Neither Obama nor Palin nor any political discourse is to blame for the Arizona tragedy.
The bigger issue to come out of this event is to ask what as a society should we do with people like Loughner? Those who work with the mentally ill tell me schizophrenia is treatable, but often goes untreated because the initial warning signs are missed. The options of families, friends, law enforcement and the mental health community are limited. You can’t force treatment, nor can you simply lock up people who seem to be acting bizarre.
There are those who have written that he is “evil.” Loughner’s actions may have been evil, but it’s wrong to say the man himself was evil, as if he were possessed by witchcraft.
He is sick, not evil.
We don’t know yet the details of Loughner’s mental history or if anyone sought to help him before this event. And while it may sound insensitive to the dead and maimed to suggest the man who did the shooting is also a victim, in this case he surely is.
Loughner needed help that he never got. Why he didn’t — and what society should do with other people who suffer from a serious mental illness — is the real issue both the far left and the far right should be talking about.
Mike Buffington is editor of The Jackson Herald. He can be reached at mike@mainstreetnews.com.
Lame editorial.
I also appreciate Mike's candor in opening up the discussion about mental illness. I work with young people/adults in educational and ministry settings, and often feel that there are not enough resources to help individuals that are suffering psychologically. It makes me wonder how much goes undetected.
Thanks, Mike. Please continue to bring this issue to the forefront.
Either way, the Right is responsible for his actions.
We can forget about the victims, whose memorial service was turned into a redux of the Wellstone (memorial) pep rally.
I have never seen this country more divided, nor more lost.
Hope
Change
Thrive
We got Change, alright.
The far-left is simply taking a page out of the worn-out far-left playbook because they've lost all credibility concerning real things and are grasping at any pseudo problem that could paint the folks in the middle as the problem. But all evidence is pointing to mental illness as Mr. Buffington has pointed out in his well-written editorial.
If this is indeed a case of schizophrenia then this young man could possibly be perfectly fine with medication. That truly is a tragedy and if so, he should be found innocent by reason of insanity. He's not a criminal. Of course he should not be allowed to buy guns again in any case.
What? OF COURSE you can, it happens every day!
"He is sick, not evil."
So, if we "understand" why someone does something evil, THEY aren't evil, they are SICK. But when we don't "understand" why someone does something evil, THEY are evil?
Was Bonnie & Clyde evil, or just "sick"? Was the man who shot the teenager in Atlanta last week evil, or just "sick"?
Sick or not, if someone is a danger to society, and they have proven this by their actions, they should be locked away. And throw away the key.
Honestly, I don't care how you define it, I want them locked up. And KEEP them locked up. Too many times "sick" people are deemed "cured", and released, only to refuse to take the medicine that keeps them "cured", and they repeat what they've already done. If you can't truly cure them, keep them AND US safe by keeping them secured.
Too many people are bleeding hearts and are only too concerned about how the people committing these terrible acts are treated. But where is this concern when some innocent person (or persons) have to pay the price for someone else's being "sick"?
People are DEAD and the "lucky" ones will struggle for the rest of their lives because of ONE "sick" individual. So, these people and their families are paying the price for what one "sick" person has done. Believe me callous if you will, but I have little patience for this continuing misplaced "understanding" for the people who commit these CRIMES.
I bet if one of these murdered people was your wife or child, you wouldn't be such a bleeding heart.
Yes, there are dead people as a result of a mentally ill man not being treated. This should be a lesson for all of us. Executing this man will be punishment for a crime he doesn't understand that he committed. Even prison is not fair for this man. He needs to be in a psychiatric hospital until treated effectively.
I wish life were more simple but it's not. This is not a criminal case.
I think there is quite a difference between evil and a serious mental disease.
It wasn't so long ago that severely mentally ill persons were institutionalized. (Indeed, a local colloquialism in my youth was to say "gone to Milledgeville" to refer to someone who had been hospitalized as the result of a psychotic break.) Someone, at some point, made the determination that institutionalization was an arcane and barbaric practice, and before long the seriously mentally ill were being put on the street, for the most part with inadequate support or follow up.
Was this decision made for the sake of humane treatment? Was it for financial reasons? I would question the validity of either argument. Is leaving a psychotic person to roam the streets, where they could possibly harm themselves or others, humane treatment? Left to their own devices, few seriously ill persons will seek the help they need. As for the financial argument, how much does it cost society in crime, or as with the tragedy in Arizona, in lives?
Perhaps it is time to re-examine the notion of providing inpatient mental health services - AND the possibility of having certain persons committed to inpatient treatment. Would having such options in place have prevented Loughner's actions? Difficult to tell, especially considering he did not have a history of violence. But for those who do cause repeated harm to themselves or others, perhaps institutionalization is something that should be available.
While Nazi Germany, Communist Soviet Union, Communist China and some Islamic countries might have summary executions, this nation does not and should not.
Simple depression would not incapacitate someone to the degree that he would not know right from wrong.