Last week, students experienced threats of violence from an extremist who justifies their threats on the grounds that their victims are being unfair to minorities. In their threats, the shooter hints that violence should be used to fight the injustices they have witnessed on campus. Although their expression of this view is extreme and indicative of mental instability, this notion stems from a concept that is widely accepted in our society: the idea that violence is the right method to solve problems and that only through violence is justice served.
This concept is especially prominent in our television shows. According to The Indianapolis Star, “The average American youth will witness 16,000 simulated murders” by the time they are 18. Sixty-six percent of television shows contain violence. Among the 20 top viewed TV shows in 2013, a quarter of them were crime dramas with scenes of violence in them. Although many of the deaths in these TV shows are deaths of the victims, recall all of the episodes you have seen in which the good guy kills the bad guy and suffers no psychological repercussions. Hollywood shows the supposed glamour of doling out justice unto villains, but hides from us the emotional stress inlaid in the aftermath of such actions. The heroes don’t think twice about it, so why should we?
It has not been proven that violence in the media causes violence in life, and I am in no way condemning shows with violence in them. However, viewers must cling to the reality that a human life is a human life – one should never feel gratification for killing someone, even if they are evil.
Cops kill people in order to protect others. If no threat presents itself, then violence should be avoided. There is no room for retribution, and this is where many tend to blur the line. Forty-two percent of Americans are in favor of using the death penalty rather than sentencing criminals to life in prison. Some people support it because stricter punishments prevent future attacks. Although I cannot vouch for the soundness of this argument, I understand the reasoning of these supporters. However, an alarming number of people say that they support it because it provides closure and because the felon deserves it. Seeing criminals die grants many people a sense of satisfaction; in fact, many early executions, such as hangings, were exciting events for the public. Criminals killed people, so they deserve it. What’s wrong with enjoying the moment of watching them fry? It might even be fun to be the one to pull the switch.
If my analysis of Pendragon is right, they think they’re pulling the switch. They probably feel as if those who inflict pain on minorities deserve punishment, and they see themselves as the right person to serve justice. Much like the supporters of the death penalty and the heroes of violent television, they favor bloodshed as a way to end problems and jump on the idea of making the bad guys pay. They probably even think that it will provide the minorities closure and that it will prevent injustice in the future. Their comment states that “After this day, you shall appreciate every minority.” Granted, there is great contrast between racism and murder, but Pendragon’s train of thought correlates strongly with widespread views of the death penalty and so-called justice. And despite this mutual notion, neither truly benefit. Racism still abounds, and the dead are still dead.
In the end, everyone is guilty. Some are guiltier than others, but all of us are deemed by one person or another to be deserving of death. This week, the judgment is from a self righteous shooter. The next week it will be from a self righteous crowd with voices, votes and a powerful liking for the death penalty. Even Pendragon will realize, if he has not already, that he himself is being judged; in fact, he is being judged for the act of judging. But should the rest of us be free of a guilty conscience while doing the same?
TJ Parks is a freshman majoring in journalism, anthropology and history. His column runs biweekly.
