Perspective on Mass Murders

 

There is an understandable reaction of horror when learning of the latest slaughters in New York State and Texas.  This is followed by a cry of incredulity:  Again?  When will the seemingly senseless violence end?  A list of past massacres is recalled:  Columbine in 1999, Sandy Hook in 2012 and Parkland in 2018.

But our present outrage and recall distort reality.   It may sound callous to say so, but the total of 87 killed in the mass murders above are far fewer than the homicides occurring each year in major cities such as Chicago (758), Los Angeles (352), Indianapolis (230).  [Source: 2021 FBI statistics]  While not all of these victims were shot, most were.

Maybe we as a nation have become numb to these facts.  Plainly, the impact of learning that a young person was a victim of a drive-by shooting on Chicago’s crime-ridden southside doesn’t generate the emotional ire of a slaughter at a school in small town Texas.

And that’s where the distortion comes in.  The former is a typical event; the latter remains unusual and dramatic.

Apparently, we view the routine and common event as merely a part of life to be tolerated and factored in to our activities (“be careful where you go at night”). School shootings, however, generate demands to do something!

Perhaps they are related. Don’t all these events result from a breakdown in order?

The school shooters were undoubtedly deranged and on the fringe of society. As such, they would seem to be especially vulnerable to the Internet and other outlets that foster attitudes of permissiveness and tolerance for deviant behavior. The deterrence to killing is weakened if not simply demolished.

Susceptibility to the allure of permissiveness would also seem a strong factor in the broader society as well.

A permissive attitude would affect the Chicago gang shooter in a different way than the Texan slayer. He’s not crazy. But he does see that permissiveness connotes leniency and reduced risk of consequences. It is not coincidental that reduced police presence and cutbacks on law enforcement were accompanied by a deterioration in order and respect for the law in the wake of George Floyd’s death.

Would that wanton killings could be ended by stricter gun controls. People who want to murder always seem able to find a way.

Are there real solutions? Increased security for schools would seem required, including police and armed teachers. But remember that such targets are rarely hit. Culture also needs to be less tolerant of disorder.

But that sentiment is too general to be applicable across our country of 330 million people.

If changes in murder rates are a barometer of the culture’s attitude toward law and order, consider the following statistics:

Between 2011 and 2019, the U.S. murder rate (per 100,000 people) rose 10%, a significant change but not dramatic. And in states like Maine (20% down), Wyoming (31%) and Kansas (33%), the murder rate declined sharply.

On the other hand, during the same period, rates skyrocketed in the District of Columbia (up 34%), Missouri (54%) and Maryland (32%).

These numbers suggest that we should narrow our focus to understanding why cultural attitudes toward murder may be influenced by the setting: urban, suburban or rural. Are politics and policies involved? Missouri contains St. Louis and Maryland has Baltimore. We know what needs to change.

Are Supreme Court Justices Partisan?

 

Certainly, that is the general perception.  And it often true.  It is no coincidence that Court members appointed will be members of the President’s party.  And, unsurprisingly, they will tend to rule in favor of positions favored by their party’s members.  They are partisans.

To be sure, each member of the Court (as with any judge at any level) has taken an oath to be fair and impartial.  But I suggest that predictable alignments do not mean that a judge’s pledge can be dismissed as empty words.

Sure, some oath takers view the recitation as imposing no responsibility upon them.  Yet it would be rank cynicism – and simply untrue – to treat the promise as meaningless.

The history of the Supreme Court is replete with examples of justices who voted contrary to expectations.  Two examples:

                   **  Chief Justice John Roberts surprised conservatives and liberals alike when he voted to uphold Obamacare.

                   **  Liberal Justice Breyer shocked both parties in 2001 when he voted to in favor of George Bush’s election as president.

There are many others.  Of course, these can also be considered as exception to the rule.  Judges will contend that they are not influenced by their biases and prejudices – when common sense tells us otherwise.  We all prefer believe about ourselves what we want to believe.  But that doesn’t mean that we don’t try to adhere to standards we set for ourselves.  That attitude can be reinforced if others take your commitment to fairness and impartiality as one made in good faith.

Thus, it was a mistake for 47 Republican members of the Senate to vote against the candidacy of Ketanji Brown Jackson for the Supreme Court.  Her ascendancy was assured by the unanimity of the Democrats so the negative votes accomplished nothing but to highlight the refusal of the opposition to credit the nominee with “good faith”.

Ironically, the support of her three GOP backers (Senators Collins, Murkowski and Romney) may in the future cause Justice Jackson to take more seriously her oath because they voted for her in apparent reliance on her own sincerity,