From a very young age I was taught that violence is wrong, that it solves nothing, and that we should use our words to win arguments. Seems like sound logic to me (and I'm pretty sure that most people I know would agree). I'm not a proponent of war, gang violence, or spanking. However, recent discussions, observations, and events are challenging this long-held absolute, and hinting at the possibility that there may be some cases where violence is indeed the most effective, perhaps the only, course of action. But does that make it right?
Ah, there's that word again. What does it mean to be "right," anyway? Right according to whom? Society? Authorities? God? We have written laws which govern society, but the unwritten laws of that society seem to stick us between a rock and a hard place. I'm not just talking about "societal norms" that serve to distinguish the "normal" people from the rest of us, but also personal and group value systems that fill in any ambiguity. How these systems are formed and whether they are defensible is a fascinating question, but an attempt to answer it would not only be frustrating as hell, it would cause me to digress even further from my point, so I'll leave it alone for now.
If I haven't lost you yet, let me explain. I recently observed two entirely separate incidents which on the surface appear similar, but under further review are actually quite different.
The first was actually a fictional event, a scene on my favorite show involving a group of 6th graders on the first day of school. Shane, one of the show's lead characters, is new at the school and is hoping to escape the ruthless bullying he endured in previous years. His friend Isabelle beseeches him to accept his fate with her words of wisdom: "If only life were a Judd Apatow movie where geeks ruled the world, but it's not, so let's just suck it up." Shane shrugs her off and asks someone who the most popular kid in school is. "Dan" is pointed out. Shane walks over to Dan, introduces himself, and then suddenly smacks him in the face with a lunch tray, knocking him out of him seat. From that point on Shane is feared and admired by everyone at his school.
The second event was related to me by my friend's teenage son (I'll call him Mark), who is also in 6th grade. Mark is a sweet kid and has been bullied, ridiculed and otherwise antagonized since the first day of school. Last week he lost his cool when one of the popular kids got in his face and taunted him, calling him names. Mark channeled his pent up rage to his fist and punched the kid, knocking him over and bloodying his nose. A week later, Mark is now one of the most popular kids at school and has a girlfriend.
Perhaps due to the overcrowding and overall inadequacy of the California Public School System (and also the unwritten jr high code that discourages "tattling" when you are attacked by a classmate), neither Shane nor Mark experienced any repercussions from school authorities. However, even if they had, I doubt they would regret their approach, given the results achieved by their single, relatively mild act of violence.
Allow me to point out the subtle difference: In Shane's case, the attack was unprovoked. It was a premeditated maneuver to establish his dominance and avoid being a target. In Mark's case, however, you might say that the other kid "deserved it" - after months of pestering, Mark finally had enough. His reaction was almost animalistic - in the moment - while nonetheless effective. So now that we've established the intent, is Shane's act worse than Mark's?
Maybe this is an obvious yes for some, but I can't seem to wrap my brain around it. Why does it matter whether the act was premeditated? Why do premeditated killers receive a harsher punishment than those who kill in the heat of passion? Our lawmakers have decided that someone who willingly and consciously breaks the law is more dangerous than someone who cannot control his/her impulses. I'm not sure I agree with this determination.
According to mens rea, "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty." So if Mark acted on impulse, he did not have a guilty mind. On the other hand, Shane had intent, though end his goal was not to hurt Dan. I suppose I can agree that Shane's premeditation indicates disregard for the rights of others, and that is not good, but does that make it worse than Mark just "losing it?"
Then there's the question of moral priority and justifiable violence. If the code of teenagers makes being "popular" more important than almost anything, can we blame Shane or Mark for their actions? What other recourse did they have? I originally made the mistake of applying adult logic to this question. But approaches like "use your words" and "kill them with kindness" can rarely be applied successfully in the junior high setting. ("Well, [slap] me with a dictionary, kid. Get beat up much?")
In twisted teenage logic, I think both boys felt they were acting in self-defense, though Shane's strike was more preemptive. If social acceptance is linked to a sense of security (and I believe it is), isn't self-defense a reasonable excuse, even if no real physical danger was present?
Are they simply moral failures because their priorities are out of whack? If so, then at what age do we start demanding that their priorities be in order? Or do we allow moral mismanagement to continue into adulthood, so long as no laws are broken?
While you bring a very valid point on the subject of violence and morality, you have missed the point in determining a legal difference between a premeditated crime and one of passion. The reason that crimes of premeditation are punished more severely is that a person who commits that type of crime is more likely to commit another and is therefore a more serious threat to society.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand crimes of passion are seen as momentary lapses of reason while the punishment is still prescribed, the justice system is more lenient in a case where the chances of repeat offense are less.
The case of the 6th grader may not really hold up in comparison with more serious adult crimes but consider that he too(thankfully a fictional character) is more likely to commit such an act again in the future than someone who was simply pushed too far