Why is it that when a tragedy like Virginia Tech happens, we always end up blaming the gunman, rather than...?

Question

Trying to find some positive ways to fix the underlying problems which have led to the shooting?

In the last couple of days, I've been trying to highlight that it is society's fault that we have such tragedies. I'm not blaming people *individually*, but the problems I've been seeing is:

1) We blame the guy who killed the students.

2) Mourn the loss of the students.

3) Spend the next week *dissecting* the killer and then comparing him to everyone else who was a likeminded murderer.

4) Enact laws which do *nothing* to address the real problems we face in our social makeup.

5) Sweep it under the rug and repeat when necessary.

I've noticed in this particular incident, that people are so quick to attack Cho for what he did, but never address the core issues which led him down this path.

Like I pointed out in my blog entry yesterday: "We're not killers by fault or design."

But society has always had a tendancy to IGNORE the issues which plague our children, our teens, young men and women, and even the elderly.

And you wonder why when people question the reasons for such episodes, they never bother to see that they themselves are at fault.

For not getting more involved. For not embracing those who need help. For not being there when they need it the most.

Taking responsibility for one's own actions is fine and dandy, but why do we have to ignore people who we see as a mental issue or someone who is either different or reclusive by nature?

If we took more time to understand these problems and made a concentrated effort to seriously address the problems dogging us, then the world we live in as a society may very well be less bloody--and less tragic.

I'm not applauding Cho's actions. I am simply shedding light on those mechanisms which have led to this event.

Answer 1

I think you are right. And what is so interesting (and I don't know if this is provable) but when somebody in another country does a horrible act...say, a suicide bomber in the middle east, we rarely focus on the individual but we focus on the culture or the religion which helped breed this violent person (how many times have we heard "oh its because of islam or radicalism, etc.)..but when it comes to our own society, its always the individual and the social environment disappears. and it covers the whole gamut from drug use, ordinary violence or the extraordinary like this act... you name it. Always focusing on the individual.

My guess is that it's always harder to look in the mirror and see the problems in one's own society because we participate and contribute to them (and in some instance benefit from the societal ills!)

Personally, I would love to hear more on the cultural/societal stimulants to this or any other kind of violence...gun violence is just off the charts in this country compared to other industrialized countries...why? I feel that the pop pscyhology on Cho won't get us anywhere in understanding these sort of things...

Answer 2

Cho should be attacked for taking 33 innocent lives for no reason whatsoever other than he wanted to be famous and he was obviously mentally not right. I agree that the school dropped the ball when it came to working with him or noticing his problem behavior. Teachers had reported some strange things about him but then nothing was done about it. That's wrong. But, I am also tired of every killer blaming society or their parents or everyone other than themselves for the crime they committed. At some point we all have to take responsibility for ourselves and the decisions we make.

Answer 3

Daniel S. gave a great answer. This is from a psychologist's point of view:

First of all, there is a difference between legal responsiblity vs. psychological "responsibility." Cho was legally responsible for his actions. In other words, just because you go to a therapist and talk about your abusive childhood or your mother and father and how it "made" you the person that you are, you are still "legally" responsible for any crimes that you commit (and by the way, I am not saying that Cho was abused, I have not read any evidence of this). The only way a person is not legally responsible is if they plead the insanity defense. In a court of law, the insanity defense means that the person engaging in the crime did not know, at the time the crime was committed, that the crime was wrong. In other words, the person had a break with reality and could not differentiate between right and wrong. I do not know if Cho would have met the legal criteria for the insanity defense.

Secondly, there are issues between individual freedom vs. civic responsiblity. The laws of this country state that you cannot legally commit someone to a psychiatric unit or facility unless a mental health professional proves that they are a harm to themselves or a harm to someone else. Cho refused all mental health help and had not been convicted of any crimes. I mean think about it, this forum is full of people who are depressed or angry, but who feel that psychology doesn't help, that medication doesn't help, and who would prefer to help themselves in spite of years of suffering. This is their legal right. So, what is "society" supposed to do?

Thirdly, psychiatric care is expensive. Even if someone is "committed" to psychiatric care, they are usually released after anywhere from 24 to 72 hours - unless their symptoms are very obvious and very severe... and/or they have the means to pay for long-term psychiatric services. I mean, how many insurance companies do you know that would have paid for mental health care for someone who is refusing it? Congress has been battling laws dealing with mental health "parity" for years - e.g. having insurance companies reimburse mental health care on the same level as physical illnesses. You can get an insurance company to reimburse you for a doctor's visit for a cold... but have to fight them to get reimbursement for psychological testing or therapy longer than 20 sessions. And, I don't mean to go off on insurance companies... we don't even know if Cho had health insurance. Many young people in their 20s feel little need for it, and it is expensive.

Fourthly... "risk assessment" or predicting whether someone will become violent is very difficult. Unless someone has been violent in the past... then no one knows if they will be violent in the future. And stalking doesn't count as a predictor of murder. There are many stalkers in this country that never murder anyone.

Ultimately, Cho was responsible for his own actions. However, the "next people in line" are people that knew him the best... which would probably be his family. I do NOT mean to blame them because they are not legally responsible... however, if a person won't seek treatment, then the burden of responsiblity usually falls on the family to pressure the person. But who knew Cho's problems were that severe? His family certainly didn't. Maybe they tried to get him into treatment, and he refused. Maybe there was a cultural bias. Many people, including (some, not all) people from traditional Asian cultures, do not view problems in this manner and do not view psychology as helpful.

Answer 4

I understand what you are saying but you have several issues that are kinda tangled together... Depending on what context you are asking, Cho is the one to blame, he pulled the trigger and made the choice to handle the way society has treated him by killing innocent people... In the context that we are not born programmed to kill others, you are right. We are products of our environment. But the cool thing with the way that humans are wired is we all have "free will". We have a choice whether to handle something in a bad way or in a good way. I think that our society sucks right now. I am with you... We yak yak yak about this and that and never really drill down to the root or catalyst and address that part. Cho wasn't born pre-destined to kill those folks. No one ever is. Unfortunately, as products of our environment, we sometimes make poor choices and sometimes those choices turn out tragic.

The other thing to consider is physiological disorders that occur in people. There are times that regardless of the environment, humans sometimes are wired so that no matter what, they can't choose or choose only the way they think is right and the result is tragic... I think that Cho was one of those folks... I am no expert.

I like your post, think its about time we start asking questions like that!

later, be good, be safe, drive fast and take a lot of chances...

out

Answer 5

Because ultimately it was his fault - his choice to pick up a gun and do what he did.

Is society wholly fault free? No, but we can still choose right or wrong. He knew what he was doing was wrong, so why did he choose to do it anyway? It is human nature. Some people will take the positive choice and try to right a wrong in a morally responsible way, like M.A.D.D. That cause was started by a mother whose son was killed by a drunk driver. This kid could have tried to start his own cause, but instead he took the easy, destructive way out.

Even with all the crap in our society, people still know that killing is wrong for any reason. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop every person from doing it.

Answer 6

Blaming the gunman is about personal responsiblity. To blame society would to claim his innocence and his innocence is bunk.

While, looking into the deeper societal issues that lead to incidence like this is important, pretending that Cho was not at least partially to blame for this incident would put people on the level of mindless zombies who's actions are not their own, but complex reactions to a networking of enviromental stimuli. Fine, but if you do that, where does that put you and your social crusade to stop this from happening?

Answer 7

That isn't a disrespectful query. It has genuine benefit. Seeing as how Falwell blamed nine/eleven at the gays, it might make feel. Im certain he is busy blaming all kinds of different matters on them although. I simply could have got to blame the taking pictures on Falwell himself. Cho made connection with Jesus, the bible and martyrs.....

Answer 8

cho must be fully depressed on some incident that happened in his life. he must have gone through a psychologist. he should not have taken the gun and shot 32 persons.

and my another doubt is that what did he do within that 2 hours gap?

Answer 9

Because the gunman was the one who pulled the trigger. It was his choice and his fault. Liberals like you do not get it. You want to blame society for creating him.

Answer 10

Because, like it or not, he IS the one responsible.

Personal responsibility seems to be taking a backseat to the (very wrong) idea that "society" is responsible for the bad choices we make. This is based on the idea that if we all just do the right thing, nothing bad will ever happen. The problem with this thinking is that there is no perfect world, where everyone is treated with respect, and everyone is happy. The fact is that the world is an unfair place, but it is both foolish and wrong for us to excuse anyone for their bad behavior because of "the environment they grew up in". Good people come from bad circumstances (e.g., Troy Smith) and bad people come from good circumstances (the Menendez Brothers). This is not to say that some of us couldn't make better decisions that affect society, but each of us has free will, to make choices, for good or for bad.

Society didn't fail Cho. It was recommended he go to counseling. He didn't go. What was "society" supposed to do, realize he was a nut and lock him up? We live in a "free" society. We believe that people should be free to make their own choices, and that people are guilty until proven innocent. While Cho did some weird things, he hadn't committed any major crimes until this one. In our society, you can't start locking people up because they "might" commit a crime. You cannot force someone to go to counseling, nor can you force them to continue counseling until they are cured. Do you want someone else to have the right to lock you up or force you into counseling for your idiosyncrasies?

You also talked of doing something about it. What would you have done?

It's easier to put things together after the fact, something the media refuses to broadcast. Two women thought he was stalking them - one of them didn't press charges. People complain that two people were shot on campus before the massacre, yet no one "locked down" the campus. Why not lock down campus? Because most of the time, the murder of a couple people does not turn into a massacre. Nothing in reality says that locking down the campus is even warranted when there is a shooting nearby, because normally, massacres don't happen. You can't run your life as though these horrible things are the rule, because they are not. I went to Ohio State. Bad things have happened there, but they didn't call in cops and lock everything down every time a woman was raped, or someone shot nearby. That would have been unnecessarily disruptive to everything. Imagine what problems it would cause if some people realized they could shut down a campus every time he did something awful. It might ENCOURAGE them.

Society can't create perfect laws to make a perfectly safe world. We could, of course, try. Maybe we could pass laws enabling cops to go through our houses secretly. They could ruffle through our things, looking for people who might be dangerous. Once they have enough "evidence" that someone "might" do something, they could arrest them. Is that where you want to go? Since people are imperfect, how long do you think it will be before that system gets abused? Maybe we should pass laws making everyone legally responsible for being friendly to everyone. Maybe that would solve the problem.

Back to responsibility. I mean, if not Cho, who is really to blame? Think back to the girl who didn't press charges for stalking. Should we arrest her now, for failing "society" by refusing to press charges? Maybe she "should have" tried to befriend her stalker. I mean, wasn't it her "Civic duty"? As long as we're holding everyone else responsible for this tragedy, why not punish the teachers who didn't work harder to have him kicked out of school, or the cops who failed to arrest him before the crime. Maybe we should hold the victims responsible, since they didn't do their civic duty by failing to get a license for and carry a weapon with which they could have stopped the gunman. Let's arrest his parents, since they obviously failed their son, and the entire country of Korea, since he was raised there for a portion of his life, and someone there "must have" done something to cause this. Is the spiral getting a bit ridiculous?

In the end, why is it dangerous to blame “society” for our failures? I believe, of all people, Cho gave us the answer. He told us why he killed all those people. "You caused me to do this," one of the notes said; "You", as in "society". In this case, he punished "society" by punishing a part of it - everyone whom he slaughtered. Now think about it. If Cho had been taught that HE is responsible for his actions, his interpretations of life, and his feelings, then who could he have blamed for how bad his life was? How could he have justified shooting anyone but himself?