Highly publicized shootings in mosques, synagogues, high schools and work places have naturally led to questions of whether there is any way to end these events. The title of this essay was deliberately chosen. It intentionally was not titled "Can we end mass shootings?" The answer to that specific question is "probably not," since it is conceivable, and even likely that highly motivated and clever perpetrators would eventually be able to defeat any systems and strategies meant to deter them. this essay is also not limited to shootings, since there are other methods of mass killing, e.g. ramming with automobiles, arson, poison gas, stabbing, bombing, etc, that are logically of as much concern as killings perpetrated with a firearm. One particularly illustrative case is that of Eliot Rodger, who killed six people near the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara in 2014. Of the people whom he killed, he shot 3 and stabbed three to death. It makes no logical sense to parse the killings by the weapon used.
In addressing the question, it may helpful to divide the motives of shooters into two simple categories, those in which specific people were the planned targets, and those in which they were not. A mafia hit, for example would fall into the first category, as would a killing seeking revenge on a particular individual. These are occasionally mass casualty events, as when a former spouse kills his or her family. In general, those killings, multiple casualty or otherwise, that involve a specific target seem easier to understand, because there is at least a nexus between the victim and the perpetrators perceived grievance.
The second category, those killings that do not involve a specific target may themselves be subdivided into two classes: those in which the killings are the direct goal of the perpetrator's act, e.g. a bank robber killing strangers during his get-away, and those in which the killing of strangers is an end in itself. This latter category includes acts of terrorism and most school shootings, and the type that seems to cause the most popular angst. These seem to be, to degree irrational or capricious. The ultimate goal of such acts is not the neutralization of the victims, but the psychological response that the wider community will have to the killing. In essence, these mass killings are a malignant form of communication. What is intended to be communicated is the disdain, loathing, and grievance that the killer feels toward amorphous groups. Adam Lanza, the Newtown school shooter, was quite explicit that he loathed humanity in general.
The observation that the more vexing type of mass killing is a form of communication is useful, because often it is not the first time that the perpetrators have attempted to communicate their psychological motives. They leave social media trails, videos, manifestos, etc. They undergo psychiatric treatment, and describe fantasies that others may find disturbing. In other words, they raise red flags. The question thus becomes, are these red flags specific enough to identify and intervene before killers shoot, burn, bomb, etc. innocent strangers.
Many of the pre-event communications of killers such as Eliot Rodger, and the Columbine killers, contain similar characteristics, the most obvious being an explicit hatred of people that the killer does not even know. When we consider the capabilities of artificial intelligence, which at base is simple a sophisticated and objective method of finding patterns, it seems plausible that we can in fact identify traits associated with psychopaths and mass killers. Algorithms target advertising based on social media entries, create implicit psychological profiles of consumers, citizens, potential voters etc., and do so with reasonable effectiveness. The question then arises whether such technologies could be used to examine a person's writings, psychological history, family history, discipline history, social profile, etc., to assess the risk of that person becoming a mass killer.
Even if it were practical to use personal data to assemble risk profiles for individuals, (and given the similarities between the pre-killing communications of known mass killers, it seems that there would be a reasonable degree of sensitivity if not specificity), the uncomfortable issue of profiling arises. What we would be doing in effect is profiling people to assess their risk of committing mass murder. This creates social, political, moral and ethical issues. Even if we could identify potential killers before they act, there may be a heavy price in doing so. It would seem, at least to a first approximation that we can prevent some mass killings by identifying potential killers before they act, but are afraid to let the profiling genie out of the bottle. Thus we focus on guns, and religion and violent video games, etc. There is a price we are reluctant to pay, so we console ourselves with cosmetic, but ineffective alternatives.
No comments:
Post a Comment