The Virginia Tech Massacre - Research Paper Example

VA Tech Shooting - Cho Seung-Hui The Massacre and the Accused The Virginia Tech massacre, which took place on April 16, 2007, took the lives of 32 people including five faculty members and 27 students on the campus. This is a remarkable case in the history of mass murder in America. Seung-Hui Cho, a South Korean student and a permanent American resident carried this out on a two hours’ interval. (Hauser, April 17, 2007) He resided in the country since he was eight years old, used a .22 caliber Walther P22 semiautomatic handgun and a 9mm semiautomatic Glock 19 handgun. He shot himself in the head supposedly when he became alert of the police approaching him. Cho was able to buy these weapons despite the psychological problem he was afflicted with and that was in the records. At around 7:15 AM he killed two students. He sent some videos to NBC News proclaiming himself to be Jesus Christ and revealing his contempt towards the wealthy students and “deceitful charlatans” (Hagan, 2010, p. 212). After two hours he entered a classroom, shut the main entrance doors and resumed to murder several students and faculty at large in 170 rounds. He had already used 174 bullets and 203 live cartridges were recovered. Several students and professors acted bravely and managed to escape and also save some others. If police had not arrived on time, further killings would have occurred. The following report will analyze the various aspects of the massacre and especially the accused along with the action taken by the VPI Campus Police Department. An analysis of behavioral theory about Seung-Hui Cho would have led to an early identification of this negativity in the student and perhaps could have prevented the massacre. Criminology theory to explain Cho’s behavior Cho’s behavior can be analyzed with the help of Trait Theory, especially Psychodynamic Trait Theory proposed by the Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso. The theory asserts that criminality is a result of abnormal biological or psychological characteristics. Biological this might be explained as follows: “Chemical and mineral imbalance leads to cognitive and learning deficits…and these factors in turn are associated with antisocial behavior” (Schechter, 2003, p. 100). Psychological Freud has put forward a theory, which has become significant with time. According to Freud, ““[the] residue of the most significant emotional attachments of our childhood, which then guides our future interpersonal relationships” (Siegel, 2005, p. 111). This theory comprises of three components – id, ego and super ego. The id dominates one’s basic needs like sleep, food habits, etc. the ego guides the id and sets by limits or barriers. The super ego judges the situation using moral judgment. In case of Cho, he hatred towards his fellow students was led by his disregard towards wealthy children and the fact that he was bullied by them. He judged the situation using his sense of morale. He judges himself to be Jesus Christ delivering the final judgment and this was the function of his disturbed super ego. . He aptly fits the profile of a school shooter. The reason was that he was bullied owing to his speech problems and also could be tracked by the history of mental troubles he underwent. He was advised to opt for counseling by the professors who went through his writings. According to Psychodynamic experts the id dominates the ego in such criminals. The urge to satisfy the basic impulse overpowers all barriers. Some experts also believe that criminals might be guided by an urgency to punish the sinful people, especially those who are sinful according to him. (Siegel, 2005) Such feelings in them cannot be restrained as they lose rationalities and the psychological defense. The actions of Cho also showed that two shooters of Columbine High School whom he referred by their first names in some of his writings and also in the document sent to NBC influenced him. He seemed to understand the way they carried out their plans and actions. This might be related with the Social Process Theory. In this case, criminality is based upon individual learning process. (Barlow & Durand, 2006) In this case Cho learnt from these two killers and records about their activities. They acted as a strong influence on his mind. Role modeling as detected by some psychologist lies behind problems of school shooters. Cho was having a similar problem. (Vito, Maahs & Holmes, 2007, p. 122) VPI police and Cho’s behavioral problem Though the police acted quite fast indeed, the attack might have been prevented if the police were notified earlier. On the morning of April 16, 2007, someone found a note at the chained entrance door saying that if anyone tried to open it, the bomb would go off. Now such a bomb threat was supposed to call for instant police action. Instead it was a slow process. A faculty member took the note to the dean’s office in the Engineering department. While someone at the office was about to call the police the murders began. Now a handwriting match suggested Cho himself wrote this note. However three other notes were found in the previous weeks but those were false warnings and those were not Cho’s handwritings. In those cases the buildings were emptied instantly. This is the reason why Cho’s warning note was perhaps not taken seriously. Had the police been called at that time, the massacre could have been curtailed to a great extent or even might have been prevented. Again a few minutes before the shooting began a female student used the window to reach her destination but did not report the chained door because she assumed some construction work was perhaps going on. Even two days back someone noticed a hooded Asian near the entrance door. After the massacre occurred facts were put together but none took these signs too seriously. Finally if the mental issues about Cho were reported to the entire campus earlier then things would perhaps have turned out differently. Therefore the University authority and the faculty members hold the final responsibility. (Virginia Tech Review Panel, 2007, p.89) The responsibility on the University holds because both the school and Cho’s family were aware that the problem did not merely lie in his introversion. A Virginia special justice unit instructed him to go through treatment after being declared mental sick in 2005. The school did not make the students aware of his mental problems. Accusations also came on the gun free zone of Virginia due to which no one had a weapon to defend himself. On the day of the massacre, neither was the bomb note reported on time nor did the students know what kind of a dangerous person they were left with. He was affected with depressive phases and thoughts of homicide and suicide. He was even under treatment during his pre college period. During his high school Cho was detected with special education needs. He underwent therapy for expression since his withdrawn behavior indicated high risk. During his high school years, his surroundings were harmonious for him to behave positively. His therapists worked in sync with his family. (Virginia Tech Review Panel, 2007, p. 39) As soon as he shifted to high college this came to an end and the negative side came out. His grades suffered and he made wrong choice of subjects. Now the admission committee should have attended all these when he was taken into the college. Had the VPI police been aware of behavioral theory of criminals, if all the details of Cho’s background was submitted to them and if they had taken out sometime to fit the puzzles together then this massacre could have been avoided. Cho’s tendency of staying isolated and his use of first names of the Columbian criminals clearly showed a possibility of violent rebellion. Had the problems related to his “angry, depressed behavior” been detected on time, Cho could be given proper treatment like he received during high school years (Shapiro, 2007). It was reported that even his mother had appealed to the authority to help him after paying a visit. Knowing about his traits and the danger which they indicated might even have compelled the administrators to isolate him for special education or at least monitor his actions closely, check his belongings regularly, etc. Security should have been present right at the doorstep with proper arms such that he could prevent the occurring. In fact little was learnt from this incident since a year later another mass killing occurred at the Northern Illinois University led by Steven Kazmierczak who also committed suicide like Cho before police’s arrival. He had used a guitar case to bring the gun to the class (Bachman, & Schutt, 2010, p.1). Recommendation and conclusion In order to prevent such tragedies in future it is important to keep a record of each student’s history especially about his or her psychological set up and deal with them accordingly. If guns are not allowed in the campus then such mentally crooked students should be tracked on a regular basis. Security should be properly imposed along with a sensitive alarm system, which must immediately send the police. It is extremely important to provide proper treatment to those who suffer from mental disturbances. Their writings and extra curricular activities should be monitored closely along with what subject they are studying and why their grades are suffering. Their family should be made aware of this issue and if proper action is not taken the authority should intervene immediately. If one student could enter the campus with guns without being noticed there was no point in restricting its use within the campus. Above all self restraint is the best medicine and in this context, Professor Blomberg’s advice to all young students might be recalled – “Challenge yourself to have a balanced professional and personal life” (Regoli & Hewitt, 2009, p.6) Hence we may conclude that it is important to learn a lesson from this incident and efforts need to be taken as stated in order to prevent such tragedies in future. References 1. Bachman, R. & R.K. Schutt (2010), The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice, London: SAGE 2. Barlow, David H. & Durand, V. Mark. (2006). Essentials of abnormal psychology. California: Thomas Wadsworth 3. Hagan, F. E. (2010), Introduction to Criminology, London: SAGE 4. Hauser, C. (April 17, 2007), Virginia Gunman Identified as a Student, The New York Times, Retrieved on October 7, 2010 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/us/17virginia.html?_r=1&ref=virginia_polytechnic_institute_and_state_university 5. Regoli, R.M. & J.D. Hewitt (2009), Exploring Criminal Justice, New York: Jones & Bartlett Learning. 6. Schechter, H. (2003). Serial Killers. USA: Random House Publishing. 7. Shapiro, A.R. (2007), Chos Behavior Troubled Those Who Knew Him, retrieved on October 7, 2010 from: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9642190 8. Siegel, L. J. (2005). Criminology. California: Thomson Wadsworth. 9. Vito, G.F., Maahs, J.R. & R.M. Holmes, (2007), Criminology, Jones & Bartlett Learning. 10. Virginia Tech Review Panel (August 2007), VTRP Report, available at: http://www.vtreviewpanel.org/report/index.html (accessed on October 7, 2010) Read More