JUST WHO IS "GUILTY AFTER ALL?

I subscribe to one of the axioms of lawmaking: “extreme cases make bad laws.” So as I join the thousands of pundits weighing in on the Tucson tragedy. I am reminded of this fundamental. There is always, after any kind of extreme criminal event, an outcry that “there oughta be a law!" The killing by a probable psychopath is an “extreme case.” Sarah Palin, for whom I have utterly no sympathy, also goes too far, labeling the ones who blame toxic politics as “blood libel.” In making that statement she solidifies her ideological position among the creators and supporters of toxic politics; among the kinds of people who were photographed bringing automatic weapons to last year’s Town Meetings. Instead of cooling the irrational reactions, it does what Palin does best: excites the excitable.

If what I perceive to be political reasons, there is a line-up of blame-layers who want to “send a message” or some other such admonition. It is a sop to many of the public who are, with justification, angry, but it does not make good logic. And it is the kind of blind attitude that leads to repressive and unfair laws.

To adjust that thinking to the killing of six people outside a supermarket in Tucson, we are led by anger not logic. No less a person than the sheriff of the county blamed the toxic political atmosphere. Debate rages. On PBS, New York Times Op Ed journalist David Brooks declared that we can’t draw the conclusion that a mentally disturbed man did the shooting as a consequence of political ranting. It is true that the aforementioned Sarah Palin was one of the ones leading the charge: re-arm, take aim, and created those cross-hairs that aimed at congressional seats where she wanted to defeat the incumbent, including Democrat Gabrielle Gifford.

There are so many examples of “extreme cases making bad laws,” or more specifically – forcing extreme conclusions. At the risk of offended a few million women, the horrible systematic, methodical machine gunning of 14 women in Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnic institute was the act of a madman. Women’s leaders have used it, very successfully, as a springboard to highlight the plight of women as victims. It is true that society has so undervalued women for so many years that it would appear we give tacit “permission” for someone to run riot over them, to the point of murdering 14 of them. Every year there are vigils and rallies to remind us that women are victims and that a male-centred society is to blame. I recall that at the time of the mourning for those women, men were not welcome to share the demonstrations of grief.

Yes it is true that society seems to create an atmosphere of tolerance to extremes. It is true that political rhetoric has gone beyond democratic or constitutional fairness. It is true that millions of people have learned to hate their opponents. Hate is not an appropriate weapon. It is mindless and removes from the hater the responsibility to think.

In the same way that laws based on extreme cases remove the responsibility of judges to “judge” and impose on them a law that turns them into robots following orders. Can anyone show me that the “three strikes and you’re out” policy has in any way reduced crime by chronic wrongdoers? It is political The politicians who enact these draconian laws are perceived to "be on our side" while opponents appear to be “soft on crime.”

Yes, it is in a way legitimate to examine the actions of a madman in the context of the prevailing social and political atmosphere. Social boundaries have been altered. Behaviour restraints have been weakened; Compound it with the ravings of Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck and the alarmingly weak gun laws that in Arizona (and other places) allow the sale of an automatic pistol with a cartridge chamber whose size is beyond any real need. And to sell it to someone who couldn’t pass a sanity test and is further protected by his right to carry that lethal weapon concealed from public view.

But is all that the “cause” of the mass k8illing? Or is it just a concomitant of it? The man is crazy. He should have been apprehended as a threat to society and to himself.

But in a democracy, we really have no choice but to allow things to happen. The fact is that a dictatorship works better when it comes to public safety. But at what price?

I’d prefer a nutcase on the loose over cops at my doorway.