What can a free society do before an unstable person commits a crime?

By David McElroy · August 8, 2012

What if police were warned that James Holmes might be dangerous at some point before he took guns to a Colorado theater and started shooting people? Surely he would have been arrested and many lives would have been saved. Right?

That’s the standard sort of thing we tend to assume, but it appears that police were warned about Holmes ahead of time and did nothing to stop him. Does this mean police are indirectly to blame for the shootings? This article from The Atlantic certainly implies something like that. It says the latest revelation is “bound to elicit even more frustration and anger.” The writer then says “it’d be infuriating” to learn that police had a warning and didn’t act on it.

What kind of world does that writer want to live in?

According to ABC News, a psychiatrist at the University of Colorado was worried about her patient weeks before the shooting occurred. So she talked to a university police officer, but we don’t know what (if anything) the officer did with the warning. What should police have done?

Unless there was a specific threat — and I think it’s pretty clear that most police tend to overreact to anything they see as real threats — what could be done? We don’t lock people up in this country anymore just because a doctor believes the person might be dangerous at some future time.

There are a lot of unstable and angry people in this world, but it’s not a crime to be unstable or angry. We punish people for their actions, not for what someone believes they might be capable of doing. We’re not living in the world of “Minority Report.” Not yet.

So what do we do when a professional believes that someone might be dangerous? Do we pass laws that let us round them up and send them to mental facilities until the people in the white coats certify that those people are no longer a danger to anyone? Do we send police to interview and investigate every disturbed person? Or do we do nothing and wait until something terrible happens?

We live in a world with a tremendous number of potential dangers. We might not typically feel them, but they’re there. For instance, we don’t normally think about the white supremacist groups that would like to be violent — at least not until a member of one of them steps into a Sikh temple and kills people. Then we see stories about all the “hate groups” around us. But nobody ever draws a line between a real-life crime and what could have been done ahead of time to stop it.

It seems to me that we only have two real choices. We can arrest innocent people who there might be some reason to think could be dangerous. Or we do nothing — and wait for them to do something terrible.

The first course of action would be that of a bone fide police state. The second course of action is that of a free society.

When we suspect that people are capable of doing terrible things, there’s not much that free people can do. We can ask them questions (if they’re willing to talk). We can watch for “suspicious” activity to see whether the people are doing anything criminal. Otherwise, we have to wait — until they act. Some innocent people are going to die this way.

Would you prefer to live in a free society in which a few people occasionally die tragically? Or live in a somewhat safer society in which police have all the power and you can be detained because someone thinks you might do something bad in the future?

I hate it when innocent people die. I also hate it when people die in auto accidents, but I don’t want to ban cars.

I value individual freedom more than I value a slightly safer society. If we’re going to be free, we simply have to accept more risks. As with so many things in life, it’s a tradeoff — and I think this painful tradeoff is necessary and justified.

If Holmes’ psychiatrist merely told University of Colorado police that he might be capable of something bad, it’s probably no different from warnings they get every day, most of which turn out to be nothing. It’s a tragedy that the shootings happened, but it would be a much bigger tragedy if we gave up our freedom in pursuit of a bit more safety.

Share on Social Networks

I’m seeing a lot of simplistic and dishonest explanations right now for the current rioting in France. Those on the populist far right claim it’s all about Muslim immigrants to France disrupting the culture. Their message is that this sort of thing is going to happen in the U.S. unless “we defend the border.” On the far left, socialists and their fellow travelers claim the riots are all about wealthy people in France not paying enough taxes, resulting in cuts to government services. The truth is far more complicated, but it’s rooted in the decline of population growth in Europe. There simply aren’t enough young workers paying into the tax system anymore, so cuts in social services were inevitable. There is genuine cultural tension as more and more people immigrate from other countries, but government cuts to education and other services are even more important to what’s happening. The situation is complicated, so don’t let dishonest people with U.S. political agendas tell you that it happens to support whatever they were already promoting for partisan reasons.

Here’s another reason to appreciate the cats in your life: New research involving 93 countries found that places with more cats per person also tended to have happier people. The researchers say the finding fits with previous evidence that living with pets can reduce loneliness and stress while providing companionship, emotional attachment and social support. The study doesn’t prove that cats cause greater happiness, but it certainly adds to the evidence that sharing your home — and your life — with a cat might be good for you.

The company that owns Facebook and Instagram is heavily promoting its new AI-based software assistant called Muse, but people who are using it as it was designed are incredibly foolish. An early adopter of the software discovered that a few days ago when he advertised an item for sale on Facebook Marketplace — and he inadvertently gave Muse full authority to act on his behalf. The software agreed to a lowball offer made by another Facebook user and then gave that man the home address of the man for whom he was an agent. The software told the buyer that the seller was home and waiting for him. When the buyer showed up and waited angrily, the would-be buyer left an angry review for the man. And this angry man had the seller’s home address. It was only well after that that the software reported what it had done and admitted it had made a mistake. I won’t be putting that much power into the hands of any software. I think anyone who agrees to such terms is a fool. And the software’s user agreement says you’re responsible for purchases the software makes in your name. Nope.

Meet my new girlfriend. Her name is Meg. And she’s my little sweetheart. A couple of months ago, a neighbor across the street told me about a new stray in the neighborhood that she and I were both soon feeding. The cat had been very skittish about contact and she had a lot of scabs and parasites in her fur, but a trip to the vet last week revealed that she was otherwise in good health. The vet estimates her to be 1 to 2 years old. I named her for Meg Murry, the 13-year-old protagonist of Madeleine L’Engle’s wonderful book, “A Wrinkle in Time.” (Please read the book. Don’t watch the horrible movie.) Since we lost Lucy almost a year ago, it seems appropriate that we finally have a new little girl to join the household. She’s already captured my heart, but Alex, Oliver and Sam aren’t there quite yet.

There’s nothing socially acceptable that’s as dangerous as drinking alcohol. Most people grow up being told to “drink responsibly” — and all of us see people abusing this drug in one way or another — but the truth is that drinking alcohol is always a terrible risk. The alcohol in these drinks is toxic and the human liver has to work hard to filter the toxins out. What most people don’t realize is that alcohol is classified as a known carcinogen by the World Health Organization — because of the well-established connection between imbibing and various cancers. Many people have taken refuge behind the idea that light or moderate drinking might be safe, but a new study shows that drinking even one drink a day increases the risks of 10 types of cancer. When I was a teen-ager, I looked around and saw the negative effects that this behavior had on a lot of people and decided not to start drinking, so I’ve never even tried this poison. The evidence keeps piling up that I was lucky to have come to that conclusion early.

Related Posts