Although rampage school shootings are statistically rare scholars, the media, and government have sought to understand the mystery of what causes these tragedies. Katherine S. Newman in her work “rampage: the social roots of school shootings” defines rampage school shootings as involving “multiple victims”, involving one or more shooters “who are students or former students”, and most importantly occurs on a “school-related public stage before an audience”. Additionally she argues, suburbs are more susceptible to foster such phenomenon due it’s geographical isolation and excessive privatization of life. In essence, the very virtuous which made suburbs “the suburb” have ironically fostered an environment were troubled youth are less susceptible to be helped early on and more likely to have their threats go unnoticed due to the communities inability “...to communicate among themselves about the problems brewing in their midst” (276). From this outside-in perspective Newman challenges popular interpretations which contend children perpetrators “just snapped”.
The stage of youth has historically been regarded as a vulnerable transition period in which youth are attempting to make sense of their role in society. As such adolescence is an important stage in which society seeks to align, or realign if necessary, youth’s character in the the name of society. Indeed, our current legal system is reflective of this as it deems youth as having diminished culpability and greater capacity to be reinstituted to society. Albeit, from an inside-out approach it makes sense to hold criminals like Michael Carney, Mitchell Johnson, and Andrew Golden less legally culpable for their actions on the basis of their suffering from bullying and heightened sensitivity to rejection. However, at the same time given the premeditated nature of these shooters acts one cannot help but ask if the law being too soft on youth criminals? Surely, at the general level one does not advocate for the strict implementation of zero-tolerance policies which have been proven to hurt more than benefit youth; yet, in instances of heightened violence it is inconceivable to allow youth to shirk the responsibility of their actions.
Undoubtedly, the complexity of rampage school shootings cannot be understood by simply looking at the cognitive development of youth perpetrators but rather must be understood in conjunction with the temporal context. I agree with Newman’s analysis that peer support, whether genuine or not, can lead to youth violence. In this sense, it aligns with Coleman's idea that the best way to realign the youth subculture is through peer influence.
The ability of perpetrators to "plead insanity" presents an interesting dilemma. On the one hand, shootings are tragic crimes which harm many people. On the other hand, many of these shooters have legitimate mental issues, caused by real environmental factors, such as the nature of suburbia described by Gicel.
ReplyDeleteThis raises the issue of how society should punish school shooters. Just as zero-tolerance policies do not address the underlying psychological issues behind student misbehavior, nor will harsher punishments address the environmental factors--such as bullying or family disorder--that lead to school shootings. It is understandable that a crime as horrific as a school shooting should be punished severely, but these shootings are not perpetrated by normal people who just have a propensity for violence. School shooters are often mentally distressed as a result of social rejection or previous trauma.
One potential solution is to implement methods to detect the onset of a shooting. Many shootings are premeditated and have disturbingly clear warning signs. For example, Newman describes how the shooters she studied often told their friends of the impending disaster or showed them the weapons they used. Schools need to be more aware of these pre-shooting incidents. Implementing detection methods for these types of signs is probably easier than digging through a student's history or testing their mental wellbeing.
You did a great job arguing your points. I agree with Yu Yat Yang that the diminished knowledge of youth is an important point that you bring up. How do we punish youth enough so that they learn but are not treated too harshly? We know that some adolescents do know better yet others don’t which is difficult when dealing with the law. I think the only thing we can do, as a society, is to monitor our youth. Even if that means taking away some of their private rights, I think it is better than the alternative of letting children who need help and social interaction or positive reinforcement go unnoticed. Although there have been multiple factors which contributed to rampage shootings, I find these two factors common in most of the rampage shooters personalities as withdrawn from the community and not enough parental supervision and also an interest in violent video games.
ReplyDeleteNewman discusses the various contributes to why one youth gets involved in a rampage school shooting. Gicel Angeles points out the complexity of rampage school shootings, which was also discussed in Newman’s reading, and argues that the law is too soft on youth criminals. However, I personally think that youth criminals do have the change to be seen as “less responsible,” because of all the complex factors and psychological disorders these criminals went through. From different studies on youth, such as Chicago gangs, suggest that in some forms, youths tend to find their own space or community that they could escape from ‘mainstream’ cultures, if borrowed the term from Coleman, “subculture.” In Newman’s reading, two specific cases of rampage school shootings show that all these youths were in some ways deprived of this “escape,” because of geographic constraints, small towns. Gicel Angeles did not mention how disadvantageous this aspect could be to those youths. Also, another interesting point raised in Newman’s reading was that such rampage school shootings attracted such huge attention because shooters were whites. If other ethic minorities committed those shootings, they would have concluded with the relation to their race and socioeconomics, without further studies that were done in these two cases. Gicel Angeles could have delved more into such individual’s qualities and analyzed.
ReplyDeleteI like the way the author described what a rampage school shooting was. I never looked at it as including former students, but it does happen. I do not think that that a single reason for why rampage shootings happens will ever be made. I think it is more of a case by case topic. It seems like the more infamous school shootings are all in regards to different scenarios. I think that not feeling accepted or good enough in the eyes of their peers may be one factor in why school shootings may occur. When I was in high school, we had a lock down due to a student on campus with a gun. The student, in this case, was one who was in and out of trouble all the time. I think that here, he must have gotten fed up with all the discipline he had been given throughout his time in our school district. No one was hurt during this, and no answers as to why he chose to do this was discovered.
ReplyDeleteIt is scary to think about how something as tragic as a rampage shooting could happen at anytime and that there is still very limited ways to prevent it. I think if students are educated more greatly on the importance of seeking help when they feel like they are under any type of great pressure, then maybe progress will or could be made.
After reading the article and some of these comments, it seems to me like this idea of diminished capacity has a little too much weight. The idea that a high school student doesn't understand that he/she shouldn't kill people is kind of a ridiculous statement. Of course being bullied is terrible and may cause a kid to feel unaccepted and even hate his peers, but there is a huge leap from that emotional response to a physical one where someone would go to a school and try to kill all of their classmates. I agree that kids don't just snap and regardless of the environmental issues, an insanity defense should not work in these cases. I think sometimes we fall into this trap of trying to make excuses for the shooter, but in the end they are still murderers. It does not matter what caused their action, they murdered people, being bullied or neglected because of their suburban lifestyle should not excuse their actions or give them an opportunity to plead insanity.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading the essay by Gicel and agreed with her points being made about there being a fine line between holding these kids accountable for their actions versus understanding their motivations and treating them lighter. It is difficult, I feel, to judge youth because their minds are so susceptible to their environment that it's difficult to say whether prison is the best reform for negative, irrational conduct like school shootings, especially when premeditated- or if there is an altogether different way that will instill better behavior. Or a final option- are these kids just a lost cause? I do not believe in the last option, though it is one that I've heard before. Does is make a difference if these kids were provoked and felt they had no option but to seek revenge and in their own minds act out of self defense, or is murder still murder no matter the context? These school shootings are a tragedy but one that has to be looked at both in a legal manner as well as sociological. We have to understand the why to be a let to prevent it but we also must be able to deal with those youth today and know how to best go about dealing with them so that no one is hurt. This is a fine line.
ReplyDeleteIf the excessive privatization of life the suburbs offer foster an isolated environment would a diverse one that is under constant surveillance and profiling by authorities help troubled youth? Can rampage shootings be prevented with harsher punishment and surveillance that sends a clear message such as zero tolerance policies?
ReplyDelete