Instead of writing about similar events and scientific theories, I now post the following, reproduced in full and with permission, from Tammy Swofford's blog site as her essay presents an issue which is being avoided and should, in my opinion, be addressed:
Apparently, we lack a doctrine of “The Last Shot Fired”. The Colorado theatre massacre warranted the use of deadly force.Right now, all sorts of people – experts and otherwise all along the medical and political spectrum – are tying themselves into knots and asking, "Why did this happen?" and "What can we do to prevent this kind of thing?"
Why must tax-payers now bear the burden of incarceration of James Holmes? We will also bear the burden of every bite of food which enters his mouth. We will pay for behavioral analysts who ponder the nature of evil. We will pay for the toilet paper and toothpaste he uses and bear the burden of his medical care.
The doctrine of deadly force lacks a necessary clause. Rabid animals should be put down immediately for the safety of society. If a rabid dog suddenly becomes docile do we let down our guard?
The last shot fired should be from the weapon of a responding officer.
Would that I had been present and fully armed when James Holmes showed his combat-clad form, because I would have taken the shot, even with his weapons down. My shot would have been the last shot fired.
Think about this issue.
New Swofford Commentary Site
Please watch the following short statement from Charles Krauthammer, a doctor of psychiatry:
Of course, as a doctor of psychiatry, Dr. Krauthammer is naturally curious about the workings of the brain of James E. Holmes. But will doctors and scientists really learn something of value so as to prevent another similar attack by another individual? Not likely at all!
I think back to when my mother unexpectedly died in 1987 in the coronary care unit.
Upon her death, family doctor asked my father and me, "Shall we do an autopsy?"
We considered for a moment and asked the obvious question: "Will an autopsy help someone else?"
Our family doctor replied, "No. It's just a matter of curiosity."
We denied the autopsy, and the doctor concurred with our decision.
I submit that ongoing analysis of James E. Holmes and his vile deeds is nothing more than a matter of curiosity.
Let us consider incarceration expenditures; after all, expenditures are considered for all sorts of other government departments and for various healthcare measures:
Note that the above figures are averages.
The death penalty also has high costs:
...California taxpayers pay $90,000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement....Expenditures aside, let us ask this question: CAN we prevent such massacres from happening? After all, the maladies of the soul and of the human brain are numerous and, to a certain extent, unfathomable. These maladies will likely remain unfathomable.
Moreover, do any of us really believe that James E. Holmes can be rehabilitated?
We CAN, however, follow the doctrine of the last shot fired.
It is both justice and mercy to follow that doctrine.