More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Terry Newell

GET UPDATES FROM Terry Newell
 

The Arizona Shooting and the Problem with Asking Who's to Blame

Posted: 01/15/11 12:16 PM ET

The tragic shooting of 19 people, six of whom died, in the attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has raised, quite naturally, the question of who is responsible. Jared Loughner's rampage is an affront to civilized society and a direct challenge to our form of government. It's a critical question, and the victims deserve a thoughtful answer. But that does not mean we'll approach it thoughtfully. If we do not, we compound one tragedy with another.

The question of responsibility can quickly lead to invective instead of insight. That has already begun in the typical attempt to fix blame. But blame is not the same as responsibility. Blame, derived from the Latin blashemare, means "to rebuke, reprimand, condemn, criticize." Responsible, derived from the Latin responsus, means "to be morally accountable for one's actions." Blame is a one way focus on what others have done. Responsibility is a two-way conversation on what we owe to each other. If we seek to fix blame instead of responsibility, we take the mentally easy way out. The former requires only anger. The latter requires fact, analysis, and empathic dialogue.

One piece of the answer should be simple. Jared Loughner is directly responsible. Even if we believe, or a court finds, that he was legally insane at the time of his action, he is responsible for what he did. While insanity may be a legal reason to treat him differently than a criminal with full mental capacity, it should not excuse his moral culpability. The insanity defense, should he choose to use that, can blur this important point. We might be better if our legal system first determined guilt or innocence and only then considered one's mental state at the time of his or her action, as a factor that affects the nature of punishment.

But who else, if anyone, beyond Jared Loughner is morally accountable? Here we need to make a distinction between the bad apple -- Loughner -- and the bad barrel. Was Jared Loughner destined to kill, or did the social context in which he lived play some indirect part in fostering his rampage? Reasonable people will disagree, but that does not mean we cannot reason about this.

Fact: Loughner slipped through the mental health system. As a Pima Community College student, his aberrant behavior was seen and led to the decision to expel him from school. It did not lead him into a system of care. Fact: he legally purchased and carried a concealed weapon. Fact: threats against members of Congress tripled between 2009 and 2010. Fact: the rhetoric in politics is often vitriolic, though this has happened before in America. Fact: the United States ranks number 4 (behind South Africa, Columbia and Thailand) in the number of murders with firearms, a total of 9,369 in 2002 (the last year of international comparisons), nearly five times the weighted average of all nations. Fact: Loughner was not the first instance of a seeming social loner resorting to mass violence. We have seen this before: at Columbine in 1999 and at Virginia Tech in 2007, to name just two of the most extreme examples. We could go on, but the reality is that the social environment in which Loughner lived -- and the people that daily create and sustain that environment -- should be asking about the extent of their own moral accountability. The fact that such tragedies continue suggests that we not treat each as a single incident but look for the systemic factors that create the water in which these deadly fish swim -- and our own responsibility for that polluted stream.

Finally, we can also identify what is irresponsible behavior in the coming weeks and months: using this tragedy as a vehicle to score points by blaming others. Some are blaming Republican or Tea Party politicians, media personalities, and interest groups that heighten political rhetoric for partisan gain. And these people and groups blame those who blame them -- often Democrats and liberal interest groups -- for using the tragedy to make political capital out of a capital crime. Some are blaming the mental health community for not having a sufficient safety net to deal with the Jared Loughners in America. Some are blaming the educational system for treating his aberrant behavior as a symptom to be excised not treated. Some are blaming the "gun culture" in America and the lack of more restrictions on the sale of weapons and ammunition, while others are blaming the gun control advocates for blaming the crime on the absence of gun controls. But we should be clear: blaming leads only to defensiveness. It seeks to externalize responsibility. Those who blame are not exercising a level of moral responsibility that the victims in Tucson deserve.

NASA astronaut and brother-in-law of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Scott Kelly, looking on earth from space on January 10th, noted that, "We are better than this. We must do better." He is right. But until each of us asks what we are doing -- or not doing -- to act on our moral responsibility to help find, help, and heal or, failing that, call to the attention of authorities those who cannot be helped -- we avoid our own moral accountability for stopping such tragedies in the American we love. Jared Loughner acted alone, and his aloneness should call out to all of us.

Responsibility is what we owe to each other. As Catholic theologian John Carroll put it years ago: "In the end, as in the beginning, we are responsible to each other and for each other. It is that kind of island, this earth."

 
The tragic shooting of 19 people, six of whom died, in the attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has raised, quite naturally, the question of who is responsible. Jared Loughner's rampage is an affront to...
The tragic shooting of 19 people, six of whom died, in the attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has raised, quite naturally, the question of who is responsible. Jared Loughner's rampage is an affront to...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 41
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NABNYC
10:30 PM on 01/19/2011
Using the term the "blame game" suggests that anybody who wants to take a closer look at our society to try to figure out why we have so many guns deaths is being irrational, or unfair. The term itself ridicules and demeans people who seek to use information and facts to support an analysis. What is the cause of all the gun deaths in our country every year? Is it the ready availability of guns? A culture that worships violence, and raises children to see violence as entertainment, to think that killing is manly? Does that have anything to do with it? Is it the hate speech embraced by the right? Does that affect the murder rate, deaths by guns? Is it the refusal of Congress to ban assault weapons or pass a strict background check and reasonable restrictions on gun possession and ownership? Given the number of people who die from guns every year, I would hardly call this analysis a "blame game." Instead, it's doing the job that our politicians refuse to do because their private deals with the NRA are so lucrative.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gmcinahuff
PREVENTION IS KEY.
01:10 PM on 01/19/2011
Your article states.
But blame is not the same as responsibility. Blame, derived from the Latin blashemare, means "to rebuke, reprimand, condemn, criticize."

I have criticized the Tea Party for their use of their symbols, terms and metaphors denoting violence while using political rhetoric to incite fear and anger. Inciting anger then adding fuel to the fire by asking citizens to bring their guns to events which may have hotly contested dialogue. This is simply reckless.

I may criticize the Tea Party but do I blame them?

Although Webster has "blame" listed as a synonym of "criticize", the actual definition of criticism as : to express one's unfavorable opinion of the worth or quality of.

The Tea Party actions were reckless in their expression of malcontent. Intentionally using violent themes while providing a list of Democratic members by cross hair symbols clearly showed having little regard as to how this may effect emotionally unbalanced people who may take their innuendo's in a literal sense.

Even with public outcry, the Tea Party stayed on course.

We all know the Tea Party did not mail Loughner order's to go on a shooting rampage, however, we cannot turn a blind eye as to the obvious. How violent innuendo's towards Democratic members can lure an emotionally disturbed man to fire his gun at a Congressional member listed on a map with a cross hair .

Responsibility lies in a society who has yet to provide care for those unable to care for themselves.
photo
PRR Fan
8 year-olds, dude.....
03:31 PM on 02/16/2011
They've been trying to pin this on the Tea Party and failed miserably. They're not even trying anymore. Didn't you get the memo?
photo
sus2222
My micro-biology is FULL
02:00 AM on 01/19/2011
Maybe Jared did not get the input about the part where we all respect each other and protect each other ( not shoot them). How could that happen in Arizona?
10:49 PM on 01/17/2011
I agree, blame others and repeat your behavior. I find numerous issues that must be dealt with, however Jared is to blame for his actions. More and more information is becoming known and it seems his plan was very well thought out. Let us deal with the tragedy then move on to softening the political world and the messages they are sending out. Words do hurt and they do stay on the mind of the public, if they didn't then we would be able to enjoy a commercial free T.V. program. Basic advertising shows us that we must speak responsibly, our children ARE listening.
08:12 AM on 01/17/2011
Flag on the play.
The responsibility for this in general is all those that have called for such a thing and consort with violent gun nuts, and tripled the threats against congress in 1 year.
The responsibility is for those that have slashed mental health budgets and taken the services away from those, like this nut, that could have gotten into the system when all the red flags went up.
The responsibility for this specifically is this nut, BUT if he is insane, he's not totally responsible any more than a child who can't reason well enough to be responsible.

"Those who blame are not exercising a level of moral responsibility that the victims in Tucson deserve."
WRONG.
Our moral responsibility to the victims is to NOT tuck tail and run; to NOT equivocate, to NOT turn this into semantic masturbation, BUT to be uncivil in our "rebuke, reprimand, condemnation and criticism" of the tea terrorists, gun "culture", violent, unprotected speech and criminals acts of violence and murder.
"We are responsible to each other and for each other"
This cowardly escape from blaming those that ARE responsible, and therefore enabling their homicidal intent upon the pacifists, liberals, Democrats, progressives and all those that are not armed, is irresponsible to the maximum.
photo
OdinsEye
Korean-Latino cop and combat vet
07:19 PM on 01/16/2011
In the military we would engage in many "process improvement" endeavors like post action reviews, lessons learned, after action reports, hot washes, etc (there were many names for them, depending on the branch of service). One thing which was ALWAYS paramount in these discussions was to avoid the blame game or finger pointing. This is because such actions result in adversarial relations, hostilities, and solve absolutely nothing. Unfortunately many people insist on doing exactly this, confusing altercation for argument, and then are surprised at the result.
photo
OdinsEye
Korean-Latino cop and combat vet
04:14 PM on 01/16/2011
Pretty well written and spot on about playing the blame game and engaging in finger pointing.
10:23 AM on 01/16/2011
Of course we're going to hear from the NRA and politics afraid of it that big extension magazines are the problem, not the gun itself. Wrong. See the video at the link below to see how long it takes to put a new clip in! And what if the next killer has 3 guns with 10 bullets each? Each gun is less than $500 anyway, so what's the big deal?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwZZQZxL0FU
photo
OdinsEye
Korean-Latino cop and combat vet
04:16 PM on 01/16/2011
With a little practice mag changes can be quite fast. In fact it was probably that this guy did not have much practice and had larger, more unweildy mags which slowed him down enough to be tackled. For anyone even moderately proficient with a firearm, there is no appreciable difference between one 30 rd mag, two 15 rd mags, and three 10 rd mags.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mdmccormick
I am tired of this BS
06:52 AM on 01/16/2011
Truth causes discomfort and anger from those who lose money on it. It results in incivility and there is no changing that, so the choice is between speaking the truth and having incivility as the outcome or capitulation to those who stand to lose money….. I believe we need to tell the truth and then be ready to defend ourselves.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GreenKate
01:41 AM on 01/16/2011
You can call it fact that he "slipped through the mental health system" and fact that he "legally carried a concealed weapon." But Gov Brewer should never have repealed the permit process to carry concealed weapons. And there was no mental health care system for him to slip through. Both of these are the direct result of GOP policy. Many of us have long opposed these kinds of policies because this is where they can lead. If you want to call that the blame game, knock yourself out.
08:04 AM on 01/16/2011
Absolutely! F & F.
01:32 AM on 01/16/2011
The crosshair image on Rep. Giffords district surely did not help.
photo
OdinsEye
Korean-Latino cop and combat vet
04:17 PM on 01/16/2011
There appears to be no evidence that it had anything to do with this.
photo
MizFlagPin
Standing for Truth, Justice, & the American Way
02:54 AM on 01/17/2011
So why was it taken down so quickly?
12:34 AM on 01/16/2011
Nice piece. With regard to the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, talk radio and Republicans in general, they were branded by a majority of the media as complicit in this tragedy and as such, defended themselves. I like the analogy of your child (republicans) getting constantly beaten up by the school bully (media) and the principal turns and sees your child defending himself, yet they both get detention for fighting. Is this fair? The instigator, or media, needs to be called out on this one and disciplined.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nicholasb
10:29 AM on 01/16/2011
Nope. Both parties exercised their right of free speech. You, on the other hand, want "the media" to be censored by inference, and you want a free pass for hatred. Not only do you not care about kids being bullied, you advocate for no justice for the victims. Kids could be slaughtered, for all people like you care.
08:11 PM on 01/15/2011
"We could go on, but the reality is that the social environment in which Loughner lived -- and the people that daily create and sustain that environment -- should be asking about the extent of their own moral accountability."

Even if I could agree that these examples were easily loners, a group of individuals that should automatically ring alarm bells, this isn't what society does with the 'profile'. It doesn't reflect on what it is doing wrong. It doesn't help anyone. No one wants to touch the shy kid. It makes everyone paranoid of the lone kid. Kids who have legitimate trouble adjusting (usually life long) are shunned and demonized. Others may have parents who panic and project this negativity on their child without understanding why they are withdrawn and that they are really good people inside. They panic that their child will one day be this one in a million shooter! It would have grave repercussions on the development of a child, but sadly, it happens. Even in other countries outside the US, where young people do not have access to guns. I've seen it happen. I've lived it.
07:08 PM on 01/15/2011
I have taught at a local community college for 22 years, during that time I have had students who suffered from untreated mental illness. As a teacher I don't know much about mental illness, and have very few tools to assure that my troubled students receive help.

I am grateful to Congress and the President for passing a Health Care bill that strengthens services for the mentally ill. I was encouraged by the Pamela Hyde, the Director of SAMHSA who comments on early screening and treatment of behavioral illness.

When I taught at the K-12 level, we were mandated by law to report any case of "suspected" child abuse. Once that report was made, then a trained professional from Child Protective Services would investigate and intervene if necessary.

I would like to see a similar system in place for mental illness.

I have a blog post about this issue which includes an interview with Pam Hyde and Secretary Sebbilius

http://www.whatisworking.com/2011/01/health-care-reform-and-mental-illness.html
06:56 PM on 01/15/2011
Allegedly, this guy was apolitical,never watched TV,read newpapers,not registed as Rep or Dem. He became fixated on Giffords in 2007 because he was displeased with an answer she gave him at a similar gathering. He probably does not even know who Sarah Palin is.Waiting to read psychiatric eval done by qualified persons. Bet political inflammatory remarks has nothing to do with this shooter's motives.He lived in his head, like the man who killed John Lennon.
I think folks blame as a way to deal with this horrifying tragedy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
binq56
Curious and curiouser.
01:14 AM on 01/16/2011
Not watching television or radio doesn't mean he was not affected by politics. He was on the internet and may have followed some websites that have extremely poltical views. That being said, everything we "know" about him is conjecture. Until he speaks to someone, we are all guessing and assuming based on what we individually want to believe. Total craziness is the easiest for everyone since it lets them off the hook.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GreenKate
02:00 AM on 01/16/2011
Based upon his internet presence, he was influenced by far right wing ideology. He could have gotten this second hand but what difference would that make?