01-29-2006, 08:45 AM
While I realize that the singular of evidence is not anecdote, I have two cents to add.
Just because the murderer can't bring the dead back to life doesn't mean that they can't help the process of restoration in some circumstances. I recently read Goneboy by Gregory Gibson. It's about a school shooting that took place in 1992 (back when school shootings were pretty rare and "going postal" was still all the rage). In my case, it was a very emotional read because I attended the school at the time of the shootings and know most of the people and places involved. So, it's hard for me to be impartial. For that reason, I'm really not trying to make a case for or against the death penalty, but just to add another layer to the topic.
A tough part of these random shootings is trying to figure out exactly why a particular event happened, and what the perpetrator was thinking at the time. Unfortunately, our legal system is not designed to reveal that sort of information. The courts tackle who, what, where, and when just fine, but the why is left to haunt us.
The book does a good job at revealing the hole that was left in the lives of the victim's family (well, one of the victims) and the shooter's family, precisely because there weren't any easy "whys" in this case, and the shooter wasn't particularly responsive for years afterwards.
It turns out that years later the shooter claims to have changed from having no remorse (saying that he had been following directions from God) to demonstrating remorse for his actions to the point where he has initiated ongoing communication with one of the victim's families. It sounds like his change has also been comforting to his parents, who had felt like their son wasn't even "there" any more when they visited.
I don't know if the shooter truly feels remorse for his actions. In a sense, it doesn't matter. The point, to me, is that he has been around to somehow facilitate the healing process for some people who were hurt badly by his actions. He couldn't have done that if he had been put to death, and probably not if he had still been working on legal action to appeal a death sentence. So, in this one case, perhaps it worked out for the best.
Not that anything can be "for the best" once something terrible like this has happened, of course.
It was an interesting read, in any case, although my opinion is far from unbiased.
Just because the murderer can't bring the dead back to life doesn't mean that they can't help the process of restoration in some circumstances. I recently read Goneboy by Gregory Gibson. It's about a school shooting that took place in 1992 (back when school shootings were pretty rare and "going postal" was still all the rage). In my case, it was a very emotional read because I attended the school at the time of the shootings and know most of the people and places involved. So, it's hard for me to be impartial. For that reason, I'm really not trying to make a case for or against the death penalty, but just to add another layer to the topic.
A tough part of these random shootings is trying to figure out exactly why a particular event happened, and what the perpetrator was thinking at the time. Unfortunately, our legal system is not designed to reveal that sort of information. The courts tackle who, what, where, and when just fine, but the why is left to haunt us.
The book does a good job at revealing the hole that was left in the lives of the victim's family (well, one of the victims) and the shooter's family, precisely because there weren't any easy "whys" in this case, and the shooter wasn't particularly responsive for years afterwards.
It turns out that years later the shooter claims to have changed from having no remorse (saying that he had been following directions from God) to demonstrating remorse for his actions to the point where he has initiated ongoing communication with one of the victim's families. It sounds like his change has also been comforting to his parents, who had felt like their son wasn't even "there" any more when they visited.
I don't know if the shooter truly feels remorse for his actions. In a sense, it doesn't matter. The point, to me, is that he has been around to somehow facilitate the healing process for some people who were hurt badly by his actions. He couldn't have done that if he had been put to death, and probably not if he had still been working on legal action to appeal a death sentence. So, in this one case, perhaps it worked out for the best.
Not that anything can be "for the best" once something terrible like this has happened, of course.
It was an interesting read, in any case, although my opinion is far from unbiased.
Why can't we all just get along
--Pete
--Pete