It's fair to say that almost everybody has heard of the recent shooting in Arizona. If not, here's an article that explains the basis of what happened.We've even discussed it in class when talking about the difference between absolute truth and regular truth. We related it to the incident by saying that the six victims of the shooting who died are an absolute truth. We know they're not living anymore. However, while this issue continues to remain in the media with everybody weighing in on who is responsible for it, we will never know the whole truth of why he committed this act.
Recently, I read an article by the New York Times that talks about the controversy between Pima community college that had recently kicked Jared L. Loughner out for being "troubled" after a series of "bizarre outbursts and violent Internet fantasies."
The article states that,
"In September, Pima suspended Mr. Loughner and told him not to return without a psychologist’s letter certifying that he posed no danger. But it took no steps to mandate that he have a psychiatric evaluation, which in Arizona is easier than in many states. "
He was never cleared by a professional of being mentally stable after he was expelled from the college. But was it it the college's responsibility to provide care for him if they knew he was mentally unstable? Could the shooting have been prevented?
The article goes on to quote an official the school:
“It is part of our practice to provide students with information of where they can go,” said Charlotte Fugett, an official at the college. “It’s their responsibility to find a practitioner.”
But how can you leave the responsibility for someone to actually go to a psychiatrist, if they are potentially mentally unstable? Personally, I think the school should have done something. If someone has shown behavior that could be considered dangerous, the school should have the obligation to do something about it. They can't just release him and except him to go and help himself. Especially, when he deeply believes in everything he's doing. It's not just about protecting the school, its about protecting the community. Maybe if they had tried to help, this tragedy could have been prevented.
Great post, Jackie!
ReplyDeleteI also heard about the startling outbursts at Pima, and that the school called a meeting involving him and his parents letting them know that he couldn't return without a medical note stating he was mentally sane. At this point, I believe it was the parents responsibilty to get the help needed for him, and not the schools. The parents were liable for him at this point, and I think this goes back to the conversation we had in class about possession and whether children are their parents possessions. In this case, because this man was mentally unstable, I believe the parents had full possession over him and it should have been their responsibility to help him, not the schools. They could've worked with the school, but it isn't solely the schools fault.
Jackie,
ReplyDeleteI hadn't heard about this before your post. I think that the school and parents should have stepped in if they knew he was dangerous, but I don't think we can say that this incident is the school or the parents fault. Loughner is responsible for his own actions, and though they maybe could have been prevented, I don't think it is fair to say that it is in the hands of Pima or the parents.
This seems to be a morality question, like Kohlberg talked about, and reminds me of Olivia's post. I don't know how to link it, but here is the address.
http://lockerjams.blogspot.com/2011/01/question-of-morality.html
Check it out!