Yesterday, early in the morning, tragedy struck Aurora, Colorado. This city of more than 300,000 residents experienced the terror of a madman as he killed twelve innocent people and wounded seventy-one others at the midnight showing of the conclusion of Christopher Nolan’s Batman Trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises. Two things come to the fore after a tragedy such as this: Blame and Retribution. The former is a desire to be able to point the finger and say “This is your fault! If it wasn’t for you, none of this would have happened!”. The latter is the desire to mete out punishment to the guilty parties. Neither of these things are bad in and of themselves. In order to get past a tragic event, we do need to determine who was a fault. To appropriately punish the guilty parties is to practice the virtue of justice.
Before I discuss who is to blame, I will first discuss who (or what) is not to blame.
- Batman. It has been proposed that, Batman, being the dark character that he is, is ultimately to blame. If Batman was all sunshine, lollipops, and pink unicorns, then tragedy would not have struck. I disagree. Batman, in his modern incarnation, is not a killer. Add to this that Batman’s entire motif is that of “Caped Crusader,” a crusader of justice, no less, and not revenge–for revenge look to Punisher from Marvel Comics–and act like this is antithetical to the entire Batman mythos. Yes, the comics and movies are violent, and at times quite dark, but Batman is a hero, doing what he can to save a city viewed as a lost cause by others, and doing it without unnecessary loss of life. And his adversaries are dark, but they tend to get their comeuppance in some way. In Gotham City, crime does not pay, at least not while Batman s on the clock.
- Guns. Any time there is a tragedy of this magnitude, the proponents of gun control enter a resounding chorus. “If we had tighter gun control laws, this would not have happened”. Perhaps. Instead he could have made a bomb with common household chemicals. People that set it in their minds to kill will find a way to carry out their carnage. We already have protections in place for gun control. Convicted felons may not possess firearms. People under the age of 21 cannot purchase handguns There are background checks and waiting periods. Yet the bad guys still get guns purchased illegally. All strict gun control laws do is keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. When t comes down to it a gun is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. Properly used, guns are morally neutral. Improperly used, they are dangerous. It is not the tool that needs dealt with but the person using the tool.
- Hollywood. Some would say that it is Hollywood’s glorification of violence that is to blame. That doesn’t make sense either. Hollywood blockbusters tend to be violent action films, and more recently, largely based on comic books and/or cartoons: The Avengers, X-Men, Batman, Transformers, Captain America, Green Lantern. Given the amount of money spent on action films, why are events like this not commonplace. Somewhat related, role-playing games have long suffered this kind of unjust criticism. Michael Stackpole, of GAMA, has said that in every event that gamers were implicated in violent activity, there were always other underlying issues. The same is true in this tragedy. Did the shooter watch movies? Yes. But there were clearly other issues that led him down this path.
- Politics. There was a rumor that the shooter was affiliated with the Colorado Tea Party. He wasn’t. but even if he was, would it make a difference? Others have said he was active in the Occupy Wall Street Movement (as far as I know, unconfirmed). But it really doesn’t matter. Any time you have large movements you have a mixture of good and bad. The political smears are examples of yellow journalism at its worst.
Who is to blame? The shooter. That’s it. For whatever reason, he embarked on this course of action. Perhaps we will never know all the answers. But let us stop trying to shift blame to everyone and everything except on the shooter.
In the introductory paragraph, retribution was also mentioned. In the wake of a tragedy like this we often see the outpouring of support and the best that humanity has to offer. But we also see the worst. Take this quote from an internet message board:
I don’t care if he was insane or not, this person needs to be executed. Also, taxpayers should be spared, and this shouldn’t even go to court; his rights should be stripped and should be killed by a volunteer firing squad. This might be harsh, but how fair was it that little kids, young adults, everyone, was shot, injured or killed. And he wanted to take a few more lives by rigging his home with explosives. He has no respect for other people’s lives, why should he be showed any respect toward his life.
Or this:
Sorry but this guy shot children and to me that is simply not acceptable in any society. Personally I’d like to see this guy hang on national TV. Hanging is the most gruesome barbaric punishment out there and this guy deserves it (too bad its outlawed as a capital punishment method).
Are these “justice”? I would say not. They want the shooter to suffer. They don’t want justice, they want revenge. What does the Church say? Would the death penalty–albeit a more humane method than the ones mentioned–be warranted in this situation. First, application of the death penalty is a “prudential judgement”, meaning good Catholics can have a difference of opinion without either of them being in the wrong. Even though this is true, it would seem that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is very clear on the issue. Sections 2265-2267 address the death penalty. The main points put forth:
- Legitimate defense is a grave duty when entrusted with the lives of others.
- Legitimate authority has the right to inflict punishment to safeguard the common good.
- Punishment has a twofold purpose: redressing the wrong and rehabilitation of the offender.
- Catholic tradition does not exclude recourse to the death penalty if the identity of the wrongdoer is certain.
- Public authority is to limit itself to non-lethal means, if such means can sufficiently protect the public.
- The situations in which the public authority must resort to the death penalty are very rare, if not nonexistent.
Keeping this in mind, what can we say? The state of Colorado has the responsibility to protect its citizens. The nature of the crime itself is one that lends itself to the death penalty. The identity of the shooter is certain. In the United States at this time, sufficient means exist to protect the public from further danger from this offender. Since this is true, he should not be executed. Relative costs of lifetime imprisonment vs. execution are irrelevant, as no dollar value can be placed on a human being. The absolute evil of his actions are not an issue either. The shooter’s actions are incomprehensible to the sane mind. The issue is only if Colorado can protect its citizens from this madman in the future by putting him in prison for the rest of his life. The answer to that is yes. I just don’t see how he can still be a threat while in maximum security prison for the rest of his days.
P.S. I have not used the shooter’s name in this post. It is not because I do not know the name, but because at times actions like this a re a bid at immortality. I will not assist the shooter if this is his desire, so I will not utter his name.
Catholic Ramblings 