The tragedy next time

Perhaps readers will not welcome more words about the Virginia Tech shootings, but the case still gnaws.

Many of the mysteries surrounding this sad episode have finally achieved resolution. Why (many asked) didn't the cops lock down the campus after the first shooting? A few hours after the massacre, I offered this theory: "The cops arrested the wrong guy after the first incident. Now, they are loathe to admit that they made a mistake." Replace "arrested" with "questioned" in that sentence, and we have our answer. After the first round of gunfire, a friend of victim Emily Jane Hilscher told the cops that the young lady's boyfriend was a gun enthusiast -- and upon learning this, Blacksburg's answer to Inspector Lestrade did the Conclusion Hop. The police were questioning the boyfriend, even as the main event began.

Police always blame a spouse or lover. Usually, that presumption holds true. Sometimes it doesn't.

And yet I remain puzzled. Seung-Hui Cho (the family appears to prefer the western name order) seems to have singled out Emily Hilscher -- yet nothing connects the two. Indeed, to this day, the local authorities refuse to state definitively that Cho killed her, although his gun was used in the crime.

NBC partially broadcast the murderer's videotaped confession. Although many feel that the killer's video should not have been made available to the public, I wish that we had seen those materials in full. In the expurgated version, Cho refers to some event or series of events in his life which triggered his rage. But what was that trigger?

(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)

Cho's "creative" writings make obsessive reference to pedophilia, a fact which has led many to speculate that he had suffered from abuse. But we have no other evidence for this idea.

His plays remind me of the great controversy over Sigmund Freud's work: Were his patients genuinely abused, or did they (as Freud eventually concluded) create imaginary scenarios? Many modern critics of Freud chastise him for doubting the reality of the incest reports he received. However, I have had more experience that I ever cared to have with dissociative individuals, and I can assure you that there are a lot of people out there who do not recognize the line between fantasy and reality. They confuse that which they have read with lived experience, and they fasten onto delusions of victimhood as an excuse for personal failure.

Cho was an unsuccessful English student with no real future. He must have compared himself to his older sister, a Princeton graduate who went onto a prestigious position. In Cho's "Richard McBeef," the young protagonist accuses the titular character of pedophilia and "conspiracy." But -- and this is a telling point which many have ignored -- Cho indicates that the accusations are unfounded.

According to boyhood friend Kim Gyeong-won, Cho was fairly well socialized during his elementary school years. After he entered middle school, something happened -- either an abusive episode occurred, or he became jealous over his sister's growing success, or some other factor played a role. We will probably never know.

Well, Newt Gingrich claims to know: He blames liberals. I suggest you try to read (or at least to skim) the transcript of Newt's argument, if it can be called an argument. His words simply make no sense. In fact, I think that if you compare the ramblings of Newt Gingrich and Seung-Hui Cho, Cho comes across as rather more coherent.

We know now that this young man had set off all sorts of warning sirens. He had been sent in for psychological evaluation, and one teacher found his behavior so disturbing that she refused to have him in her class. Thus, the larger question raised by this incident is: How does our society deal with those who have lost their grip on sanity?

Some say that one out of ten people in this country become untethered from reason. I don't know if that statistic is accurate, but I do believe that, at one time or another, most people reading these words will have to deal with a friend or family member suffering from severe mental health issues.

At this point, discretion forces me to be vague. The case closest to my "circle" involved a woman who once was a well-regarded nurse. Call her Casie.

Over the course of several years, Casie's behavior became erratic -- severely disturbed. Hospitals suspected (but never proved) that she was stealing drugs; thus, she became unemployable. She lost custody of her children.

While still employed as a nurse, she had once cared for Betty Ford. In gratitude, the former First Lady graciously sponsored Casie's stay in the famous rehabilitation clinic bearing her name. Although I'm no fan of Betty Ford's husband, I will always revere that lady for her kindness to Casie.

One day, I took Casie's children to visit their mother at the center. Near the entrance is a "meditation chamber" which, I jokingly opined, would be a marvelous place to drop acid. "Everyone says that," Casie told me. I asked if she had spotted anyone famous, and she whispered a few words about a certain television actor. Her daughter overheard. Later, as we toured the grounds, the little girl suddenly pointed and shrieked, in a voice loud enough for all of California to hear: "Look! It's him! It's...."

(Obviously, I can't finish that quotation.)

Alas, the stay in rehab did no lasting good. Substance abuse was not the real issue.

Casie became suicidal and engaged in acts of self-mutilation. Then she became violent towards others, at one point attacking a very elderly man. After these episodes, the cops would take her away for observation, but she was never held for more than three days.

Everyone presumes that the mentally ill can be institutionalized if they become a threat to themselves or to others. Don't believe what you hear. Our underfunded mental health system quickly transfers patients to the street or into jail. Casie ended up in the latter.

Today, those few Republicans who bother to address our mistreatment of the mentally ill invariably blame the situation on the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. In truth, it was that era's conservatives who most fervently embraced the drive to de-institutionalize the mentally ill. I can discuss this history at greater length at some later point, if need be.

For now, this much is clear: Seung-Hui Cho needed help. Medication may or may not have normalized his behavior. He may have required life-long observation, or he may have been eligible for release after only a few weeks. But he needed treatment; he needed removal from society.

That is not a post-hoc judgment. His instructors understood the problem well before the massacre.

Alas, we warehouse our mad in prisons and homeless shelters. We won't spend money on more humane options.

Which means that similar tragedies await us.