February 1996: 14-year-old Barry Loukaitis opened fire on his algebra class, killing two students and one teacher.
May 1998: Two students were killed, and 22 others wounded in the cafeteria at Thurston High School by 15-year-old Kip Kinkel.
April 1999: Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, killed 12 students and one teacher, leaving 23 others wounded at Columbine High School.
April 2007: 23-year-old Seung-Hui Cho killed 33 people and wounded 15 others at Virginia Tech in the nation’s deadliest mass shooting.
Dissimilar to public opinion, school shootings declined after 1993, despite incidents from 1997 to 1999 that were encouraged by extraordinary media coverage, according to the National School Safety Center. The concern of school shootings is the ‘troubled teen,’ or the bullied outcast with a motive to kill for pure satisfaction. Yet with a history of various student homicides, the nation’s stereotype for these massacre leaders is not correct.
School massacres of any degree challenge our stereotypes and force us to confront a level of violence that people otherwise might overlook. Because of various psychological profiles, the manner of solving any massacre is not a swift resolve. The question remains as such: should a psychologically damaged shooter be any less responsible for a massacre than a mentally stable shooter?
More so, should the school shooter be punished posthumously by means of criminal charges, or handled with psychological assessment? David Lee, senior, thinks, “The criminal charges would partially depend on the health of their [the killer’s] psyche. There could either be a wounded mind or an insane one lying behind their actions, which could vary the level of charges.”
Take for instance the Columbine boys, who opened fire in 1999. Harris was a psychopath: controlling, manipulative, and sadistic, according to psychological and law enforcement experts who studied the case. Psychopaths are in touch with reality and rational, and nearly always well-liked and charming. Diagnosing Harris as a psychopath represents neither a legal defense, nor a moral excuse. Rather it illuminates a great deal about the thought process that drove him to mass murder. In a question of criminal or victim, junior Logan Schulman states, “I feel that both should be taken into consideration, just like in a real homicide case. Law doesn’t say he’s either treated like a killer or a clinical case. They perform psychological tests and work out from there.” Klebold, a senior, was a lonely depressive, full of mood swings and suppressed emotional rage, according to psychiatrists involved in the case.
School shooters tend to act impulsively and attack the targets of their rage: students and faculty. But Harris and Klebold planned for a year, and evidence of videos and diaries expose their grander plans to wreak havoc throughout the nation, beginning with the high school as a means to the end. Lee continues by saying, “In any case, I think it’s muddy water when deciphering their [the killer’s] motives. Their actions would still be tried and they are still responsible for their deeds.”
Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho claimed to have been inspired by the Columbine killers. Cho was a psychotic, as described by mental health experts, and had a long history of mental health problems. Much like Harris and Klebold, Cho took his own life at the end of his rampage. It was only after Cho committed his murders that spectators discerned in him a murderous personal identity.
This returns to the question, should a psychologically damaged shooter be any less responsible for a massacre than a mentally stable shooter? Senior Anum Dossani claims, “It depends on how psychological dysfunction is assessed[…]it also depends on motives and profiles of violent youth. Either way, a shooter on any levels of the psychological spectrum should be held accountable for any lives that are lost due to homicide.” In any instance, would the unsuspecting psychopath be guilty of eliminating his target if he were to do so?
What investigators and experts cannot do in terms of school massacres is expound the ever conscious ‘Why?’ aspect of wide-range killings. No matter how thorough any killer’s motives can be revealed, it leaves the victims destitute with any knowledge of why the massacres occurred. Are high-profile killers to be stopped in advance if humanly possible, or is the strained communication in schools open to any sort of remediation to prevent disaster and ensure safety?
Disclaimer: If you ever see, suspect, or fall victim to school violence, tell an adult immediately. SHS faculty and staff are here for you, safety included.