Preempting Virginia Tech

Let’s talk about Virginia Tech, the site of the worst shooting in U.S. history (32 dead). The gunman? 23 year old Cho Seung-Hui. It’s difficult to pronounce, but quickly becoming a household name. I’ve been following the news stories and was surprised to hear about the substantial number of signals that indicated something was definitely wrong with this kid.

Classmates from his playwriting class mentioned that his screenplays were ridden with violence and disturbing content.

“One was about a fight between a stepson and his stepfather, and involved throwing of hammers and attacks with a chainsaw. Another was about students fantasizing about stalking and killing a teacher who sexually molested them.” (Yahoo! News)

Classmates said they weren’t sure whether his writing was invented or speaking from the torment of experience. Fellow classmate Ian MacFarlane, in a blog post prior to the shootings, mentioned that he was concerned about Cho having the potential to actually become a school shooter. Stephanie Derry said that she and others would often joke about the likelihood that he would be capable of doing something like that, but that it was no joke when she actually received word that he’d committed this heinous act.

I’m especially intrigued by the large caches of Cho’s writing that the authorities are now uncovering. The writing is consistently being described as ‘troubling’ and ‘disturbing’.

All this begs the question, should we act on signals that indicate an individual is likely a school shooter type? Were his ‘disturbing’ writings enough of a warning that something should have been done to prevent the eventual outcome? That thinking probably would not have boded well for Stephen King, but for someone like Cho, it could have saved the lives of 32 people.

Minority Report comes to mind. In the movie, the murder rate dropped to zero when the Precogs saw murder before it happened. Tom Cruz played the role of the framed murderer and it brought preemptive action under ethical question. The idea that a person who writes such disturbing material might be a school shooter and should therefore be placed under suspicion sounds like an infringement of rights, but perhaps taking no action prior to the crime is a worse strategy. That inaction could potentially be blamed for the deaths of those people.

So, should we take action to prevent possible capital crimes? Is it placing your rights and mine under attack or is it protecting our lives from demented would-be killers? What do you think?