Pointing Fingers: Who is to Blame for the Northern Illinois University Tragedy

In the wake of the Northern Illinois University shooting, the blogosphere, along with every other form of news media, is abound with explanations as to how this sort of tragedy could have happened, again. Finger pointing is a favorite pastime of many fear-full and anxious Americans with the mic turned towards them. The usual suspects have been rounded up; gory video games, poor parenting, violent television and movies, antidepressants, the availability of guns, and the ever-feared evil youth all cited as responsible for the media-sensationalized school shootings during the last couple of decades. So for this week, I decided to explore two blog posts concerning the Stephen Kazmierczak (pictured to the left) NIU shootings and how psychology and its extended fields can play a role in understanding it all. The first article I examined and commented upon was one titled Northern Illinois Shooting: Anti-depressants And Violence, a post on the highly regarded mental health blog Furious Seasons written by Philip Dawdy. The Post examines the relationship between school shooting rampages such as Kazmierczak's and antidepressants. The second article appeared in The Huffington Post, under the title The Moviegoer: School Shootings, Violent Entertainment and Other FunnyGames. This Post was written by James Rocchi, a professional film critic and frequent contributor to multiple television networks and news websites. In his post Rocchi relates the NIU shooting American gun control policy and refutes the cliche attacks on the media. I have commented directly on the two authors' posts as well as a copied version below.

"Northern Illinois Shooting: Anti-depressants And Violence"
Comment:

Thank you writer of Furious Seasons for your intelligent and informed post.

It is clear that you, along with many other reporters, have elucidated an issue that clearly needs to be looked into further. Based on accounts made by yourself along with advocates such as the founder of ssristories.com, there clearly is a relationship between antidepressants and violence. But that correlation can not be considered a direct or causal relationship. The media's typically hysterical search for someone or something to blame, in the case of the NIU shooting, has lead to citing a rather weak correlation and not causation between antidepressants and violence (weak considering what behaviors or conditions one can more readily correlate with violence) that only sponsors fear of a good product.

SSRI's among other modern treatments for depression and anxiety provide a great deal of relief to the 15 million Americans that are treated by them, and it is not fair nor ethical to instill in them the lingering fear that their medication might incite in them a homicidal rampage. Years of clinical trials by pharmaceutical companies themselves, the FDA, NIMH, APA, and unbiased researchers have led to these drugs that clearly do more to alleviate debilitating psychological conditions than aggravate side effects. Your statement that improper use of antidepressants may be a "recipe for bad things" is entirely valid, and withdrawal from almost any drug can be dangerous, but to go from symptoms of agitation and unpredictability as quoted by Dr. Garland to linking the medications to murderous sprees seems irresponsible. I entirely agree that improper use and withdrawal from antidepressants needs more research, but pointing a condemning finger at the medication that was more likely keeping Kazmierczak's violent capabilities at bay, only creates unnecessary fear.

Furthermore, it is definitely not a "chicken-and-egg" relationship, as described in the New York Times article you cited; violence obviously preceded the advent of antidepressants. It is much more likely for an un-medicated individual with depression or anxiety to hurt themselves or others than a medicated one. As long as we are talking about correlation, studies have shown that as more antidepressants are prescribed, suicide rates go down. And that during the period between 1992 and 2006, in which SSRI prescriptions more than doubled, school-related violent crime has actually declined.

"The Moviegoer: School Shootings, Violent Entertainment and Other FunnyGames"
Comment:

Dear Mr. Rocchi

Thank you for your concise but comprehensive argument against our the constant condemnation of our "culture of violence". Considering that you did not grow up in the United States also gives you an important point of view on the exhausted topic of blaming all of our problems on the media and culture. You make a very valid point that American films are enjoyed equally across the globe, yet the alleged violence that they incite in viewers is not equally shared. It is true, our gun control policies along with inadequacies in the mental health system are to blame. But the NRA lobbyists and firearm supporters have too much of a stronghold in our policy making. Defenders of vague Second Amendment Constitutional rights allow guns to be bought and sold too easily, letting them fall into the hands of the mentally ill. The most recent case of this being the NIU tragedy. With such high rates of suicide among those diagnosed with depression, should a retailer be allowed to sell three handguns and a shotgun to an individual with such afflictions as Kazmierczak. Background checks have loopholes and basically anyone can bypass laws that restrict who can buy firearms through gun shows. The NIU shooting is especially scary because by most accounts, prior to February 14th, Kazmierczak did not show any outward signs of his impending violence. Considering that depression is a highly fatal illness combined with the danger that Kazmierczak went off his medication three weeks earlier, his psychiatrist could have taken precautions to avoid guns falling into his hands if we had better system in place. As you said, "we need better mental health funding in this country, so that the cracks people slip through are smaller." The Tarasoff warning is already in place, which makes it the duty of mental health professionals to protect and warn individuals in danger due to threats or the condition of their patient. Shouldn't we allow them to suggest to the authorities that maybe their patient should have his gun rights at least temporarily removed. You are entirely just in assuming that if Kazmierczak did not have such easy access to firearms, his violent episode might not have been nearly as tragic. It seems that the aggression and violence that results from mental illness is characterized by a lack of control of impulses, and clearly the personal firearm is a far-too-deadly and impulsive weapon to be allowed in the hands of those with a characteristic lack of control. Psychology should have a lot more to say about gun control.

Eyewitness Misidentification: DNA Evidence Sets Free another Inmate Imprisoned by the Fallibility of the Mind

After serving twenty six years in prison for a crime he did not commit, Rickey Johnson (pictured to the left) was told by a Louisiana judge on January 14th, 2008 that he was free to go. Mr. Johnson was arrested after a rape victim incorrectly identified him in a police photo lineup after which he was sentenced to life without parole. The prisoner's innocence was determined with forensic DNA testing; a technology not available at the time of the crime. The Innocence Project, which represented Johnson in the case, is a public policy reform group that works to absolve wrongly convicted inmates and fights for more reliable practices in the criminal justice system to avoid tragedies like that of their client. The case stands out as simply the most recent in a series of DNA exonerations, most of which stemming from misidentification. In fact, eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in 75% of the 216 convictions overturned through DNA testing to date. Johnson's wrongful conviction is an excellent example of the fallibility of memory recall by humans in certain situations. In the intense moments of a crime psychologists tell us that many things can interfere with awareness, attentiveness, and memory. Beginning with a surge of research in the 1970's, psychologists have been struggling to convince police, courts, and policy makers that they must exercise extreme caution with the procedures surrounding eyewitness identification. However, the leisurely adoption of statutes by only a handful of states demonstrates the peculiar reluctance to instate widespread reform or standardized practices of such an important legal process.

U.S. law concerning suggested eyewitness identification procedures is largely dictated by the Supreme Court's ruling in Manson v. Braithwaite (1977) and has not been revised by the Court the the subsequent 30+ years. Recent DNA exoneration cases have corroborated the warnings of years of psychological researcher by showing that mistaken eyewitness identification was the largest single factor contributing to the conviction of these innocent people. It is largely because eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury that authorities are so resistant to make the process more stringent, yet strong scientific research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. According to Innocence Project, "the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound." Instead, eyewitness memory should be retrieved methodically and preserved carefully or it can be contaminated just like any other evidence. The most common area in which this evidence is contaminated is during sloppy or rushed suspect lineups or photo arrays implemented by the police.

In October of 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice released the first national guide for collecting and preserving eyewitness evidence as one of scientific psychology’s most dramatic and consequential contributions to national public policy. The guide was commissioned by U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, and consisted of a panel of experts, including psychologist Gary Wells, the world’s foremost authority on the psychology of eyewitness identification along with other leading psychologists in the area. The authors state that the guide, "is supported by social science research. During the past 20 years, research psychologists have produced a substantial body of findings regarding eyewitness evidence." They implemented psychologists' findings on suggestibility, authority figures, memory recall, and confidence malleability to produce an outline of best practices in order to, "obtain the most reliable and accurate information from eyewitnesses" and to make sure this evidence "is given the weight it deserves in legal proceedings." Additional pressure for guidelines was applied by psychologists through expert testimony that focused on deficiencies in the standardization of procedures used to collect the eyewitness evidence. DNA exoneration cases were particularly important in leading Reno to notice the eyewitness literature buzzing throughout psychology and to order the National Institute of Justice to coordinate the development of the guide for law enforcement. Yet as of February 6th of this year, state legislators are still just getting around to actual implementation in the form of mandated policy on a state by state basis.

What does the research suggest and the guide outline? Following are five highly simplified guidelines for identification procedures. Firstly, the police officer administering a photo or live lineup should be "blind", or unaware of who the suspect is (important so that the officer does not unknowingly influence the victim through body language or verbal cues). Secondly, the non-suspects (fillers) included in a lineup should fit the description of the perpetrator, and the eyewitness should not view multiple lineups with the same suspect (to protect from the tendency for the mind to favor that which stands out against others or is familiar). Also important, is that the eyewitness should be told that the perpetrator may or may not be in the lineup and that they should not look to the administrator for guidance (to prevent the unfamiliar setting and authoritative administrator from pressuring the witness into a decision if they are not sure). Immediately following the lineup procedure, it is advised that the eyewitness provide a level of confidence statement (much research has focused on wrongfully inflated confidence of witnesses based on positive feedback from administrators). Finally, the entire identification procedure should be videotaped and documented to prevent misconduct and ensure proper procedure (abuse of power is more likely if unchecked, and standardized and methodical evidence keeping prevents appeals and future problems).

Where we find ourselves, though, is looking back upon Rickey Johnson's case for motives behind the sloppy three-photo-array identification procedure that landed him in prison. With the national prison system filled past capacity and the court system bogged down and backed up with cases, if somebody will say that they saw a someone do it, a conviction will be easy. But the easy way is rarely the best way. It is hard to advocate for the rights of someone accused of a heinous crime, but we must remember that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, our society thrives on such principles of justice and freedom from persecution. Until recently however, the proof resulting from eyewitness identification was assumed reliable. But without the proper precautions and procedures, emotions and anxiety can interfere with an witness' memory of a crime and pressure can lead to hasty accusations. We must resist our urge to rush to conclusions as eyewitnesses because more often than we think, our mind will deceive us.