By Josie Barker
Where do you draw the line between impulse, and plain insanity? When recording a conversation between culprit and detective, at some point in the interview, the investigator inquires “what was the motive?” No matter what the cause, whether the reason be revenge or accident, are any incentives of murder justifiable? Crimes unable to be labeled planned with precision versus pure confusion offer the dying question: what evokes arguably the most humanly heinous act, killing?
On August 1, 1966, Charles Whitman, a former U.S. Marine, an architectural engineering student at the University of Texas abruptly transformed into the title owning “Texas Tower Sniper.” The night before the infamous massacre at the University of Texas, Whitman took his own mother and wife’s lives in their own respective homes. The next morning, Whitman continued on with his rampage, ending the lives of sixteen people and wounding thirty others, all from the main building clock tower. Not long after, Whitman died due to multiple gunshot wounds inflicted by Austin officers. In Whitman’s suicide note, he asked for an autopsy to be conducted on his brain, a final order to figure out what drove Whitman to want to commit such a vial deed. As requested, doctors acquiesced to Whitman’s farewell letter, and interestingly enough, a tumor, classified as a grade 4 glioblastoma, was discovered hidden in Whitman’s gray matter. The discovery of Whitman’s fleshy lump prompted the theory: how much of this dreadful act was committed because of a murderous vengeance in contrast to pure neurological damage arising from the brainy cyst? Prior to the mass murder, Whitman was described as highly intelligent, and polite. Consequently, officials debated whether the malignancy caused the violence due to its growth impinging on his amygdala—an area regulating fear and aggression—or if the neoplasm was only a contributing factor to the spontaneous slaying spree.
What classifies someone criminally insane? Jeffrey Dahmer, aside from craving to feel power and having other twisted desires playing a heavy role in his motives, was also identified to have various mental disorders. However, diagnosis doesn’t always equate to incentive. To illustrate, Ted Bundy, a serial killer recognized to have an anti-social personality disorder was fully aware of the atrocious nature of his murders, and evidently acted out of ego and sexual urge rather than psychosis. Additionally, a killer may blame their homicidal tendencies on the presence of violence in video games, but despite the impact a gun-related digital activity may have on someone’s actions, tons of people play brutal games every day, but do not reflect any aggressive traits. Furthermore, a harmful person may place fault on growing up in an abusive environment for bestowing them with sadistic characteristics, but a sibling maturing in the same atmosphere may be untouched by any violent notions. Correlation does not imply causation. An individual who enjoys playing COD may not equivocate to one who enjoys real life violence, similar to how a character with a mental disorder does not have to be someone with vicious behaviors.
Psychological disorders, although potential drivers for criminal measures, are not necessarily instigators. A perpetrator may plead insanity, and their craniums capacity may justify any unjust acts, but where do we draw the line between lunacy and conniving indecencies. At what point does utter madness cross over into premeditated atrocities? Perhaps we all are one blood clot away from a massacre, or perhaps no amount of neurological damage excuses man made destruction and disaster.