People Don’t “Snap” – Part II
In my first blog I opined that people do not “snap”, but that they often make rash and foolish decisions. I realize that it sometimes seems that people fall prey to what some psychologists have called “temporary insanity” but, quite frankly, that’s a large load of crap. ”Insanity” is a severe mental illness and mental illness does not come upon one suddenly. Mental illness is generally a slow degenerative process. Take a chronological look at the paintings of Vincent van Gogh and you can see how, near the end, his mental illness is reflected in his brush strokes.
On Friday, February 12, 2010, University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) Professor Amy Bishop stood up at a faculty meeting, took out a pistol, and began shooting people in the head. In the end, three people were dead and three people wounded, two in critical condition as of this writing. It was revealed shortly thereafter that Dr. Bishop had apparently been denied tenure earlier that same day at UAH and it was then speculated that she had “snapped” and shot her colleagues.
Bullshit, I told myself, people don’t snap. Rather than writing a blog response at the time, I awaited further developments and information about Professor Bishop’s background. The results were, to quote Mr. Spock, “Fascinating“.
The first revelation was that, in 1986, Professor Bishop had shotgunned her 18-year old brother to death in what was, at the time, considered an accident even though two rounds had been fired. The case was investigated but, for some reason, the case file has disappeared. An investigation into the decision not to charge Bishop at the time and the surprising disappearance of the case file is ongoing.
In 1993, Professor Bishop and her husband were both questioned regarding a pipe bomb which had been sent to one of Dr. Bishop’s colleagues at the Childrens’ Hospital in Boston. The pipe bomb did not explode and no charges were ever filed.
Now we learn from Professor Bishop’s husband that, just days before the shooting at UAH, she decided to go to the pistol range to practice her shooting. The pistol range. For no apparent reason, he said. Right.
Professor Joseph Ng who was present during the deadly UAH faculty meeting last Friday, said that everything was going along like a typical faculty meeting until Amy stood up, took out a 9-mm pistol, and began “shooting her targets in the head” until her gun jammed. (Apparently, no one taught Professor Bishop that you’re supposed to clean your weapon after visiting the rage to avoid blockages. A fact that may have actually saved some lives.) Afterwards, Bishop then left the room and discarded the pistol in a bathroom trash can. She was taken into custody a short time later.
Amy Bishop has a history of dealing with problems with force. She killed her 18-year old brother with a shotgun and probably sent a pipe bomb to a “colleague” she was undoubtedly having some sort of dispute with. While she may have made stupid, rash decisions, she nonetheless made decisions; she did not “snap.”
Now she finds herself in the position of probably losing her teaching position at UAH. She was denied tenure which, in academe, generally occurs for good reason. She had engaged an attorney to fight her tenure denial but the odds were against her. Her response was to go to a pistol range and practice loading and shooting a 9-mm pistol. She then attended a faculty meeting where, after 30-40 minutes, she took out the pistol and began deliberately shooting her colleagues in the head. Those same colleagues who, earlier in the day, had voted not to grant her tenure.
The two most glaring bits of information that point to the fact that Professor Bishop did NOT “snap” are the facts that (1) she had gone to the pistol range only days earlier, and (2) she had a pistol with her during the faculty meeting. Basically, everything points to the fact that this was a premeditated and calculated murder. Was this the wrong way to handle the situation? Absolutely! Were her emotions involved in making this decision? Clearly. But did she suffer from “temporary insanity” when she brought a loaded pistol to a faculty meeting where she methodically began shooting her colleagues in the head? Not only NO! but HELL NO!
Dr. Bishop’s mass murder makes her eligible for the death penalty. Alabama is a state with a history of using the death penalty. To give this murderer anything less than she deserves would be……insane.
As always, I welcome your response.
This is quite an amazing story thank you for bringing it to my attention. However I have to disagree with your ending words that not putting Dr.Bishop to death would be insane. Recently I read an article by Linda Lutton Citing several credible sources that the death penalty is a costly and ineffective deterrent. As for whether the punishment fits the crime, we can cite one of the most ancient philosophical sources, Socrates, who said that execution was sentencing someone to what is unknown. In his view being put into an unknown state was not frightening or even a punishment. I look forward to any expansion on your ideas stated in the article which might support your conclusion or refute mine.
Dr. Mahoney,
Fascinating posts, both part I and II.
I have a quick question for you, what is your opinion of a murder committed during a heightened emotional state? I recognize that there may be a difference here between that and what people refer to as temporary insanity. So specifically, I mean in the scenario that Dr. Bishop had no prior history of murder (her brother) or attempted murder (pipe bomb), and she was sitting in the meeting where people voted not to grant her tenure and she began trying to kill people using some object implying there was no premeditation (fists or a letter opener or something else), would you say that this is a form of “snapping?” How is our system to establish a difference between a crime of passion and temporary insanity? It seems as if crimes committed during both of these states lack a certain logical element. In Dr. Bishops defense (which I am not taking, but am asking for hypothetical reasons), couldn’t this be described as a crime of passion due to some possible other circumstances in her life that led her to viewing her tenure opportunity as extremely significant, and her failure to receive it left her in a heightened emotional state in which she places tremendous importance on the event?
Does this temporary insanity defense imply that there might be a history of violence, such as in the case of Dr. Bishop, or do people honestly believe that she pulled this out of no where? It seems to me that temporary does not make any sense because of the fact that she trained with the gun and has a clear history of violence, so I must agree with you whole-heartedly there.
Mr. Carman, read Kant’s theory on capital punishment…it might be of interest to you, it takes a different approach from more contemporary proponents and opponents of the death penalty.
Robby:
The main point I am trying to make is that there is no such thing as “temporary insanity.”
The concept of “insanity” requires a “break from reality” eliminating a person’s responsibility for their actions. When you think about it, we all have a decision that we have made in our lives that we wish we could go back in time and change. Just because we may have made a rash decision, or a decision based on emotion rather than common sense, does not mean that we were not responsible for the results of the decision. What may get Professor Bishop the death penalty is not her murdering three people, it will be the clear evidence of premeditation that demonstrates that she conceived of the crime long before she committed it.
a ha, okay.
Yes, that makes sense, the choice was still made even if it is based on emotion. We are still responsible for it, even if it is illogical. I do believe I agree with your conclusion about temporary insanity. I’ll keep my ears open for it in real life scenarios such as this one and make sure to reexamine in light of this post.
Thanks for the quick response Dr. Mahoney.
Interesting post. Is that your real picture?
JK.
Insanity is a legal term, not a mental illness. I know you know that, your program taught me that. Just think that it can be confusing to some if that is not made clear here. I fully agree with your point however and don’t think that delineation alone in anyway disproves your points.
I know Lonnie Athens’ work backs up your point. Are there other studies that I can reference to look more into this issue.
Joey:
I recommend a fairly new text: “Suicidal Mass Murderers: A Criminological Study of Why They Kill” by Liebert (Psychiatrist) and Birnes (Lawyer). Its available through CRC Press.
Thanks Tom,
Would love to have you discuss this issue on my show. Seems to be more and more cases of people “snapping” and having due consequences mitigated.