The Volokh Conspiracy

I agree with yours, but I would also suggest that the murderer's name and personal details should not be provided. Just identify him as, let's say, "a 32-year-old man from Chicago" and let it go at that. One major benefit: no more interviews with neighbors saying what a nice guy he was and how they cannot understand why he would do this, etc., etc.

Taking a quick look at the blog, it appears to be a collection of anecdotes, some of which follow each other. Has there ever been a systematic study that shows that, given crime X at time T, similar crime Y is N% more likely to occur within the relevant media market within one week as compared to the base weekly rate? If so, what's the N? Is it statistically significant? I worry that the support here for the "copycat effect" is a bunch of sensational news clippings.

The less that you report, the more people will begin telling stories in their minds. Look at the comments at Michelle Malkin's site or FreeRepublic or HotAir both during the crisis and afterwards, yet before the killer was identified.

There were a lot of people who were blaming "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" or islamic terrorists as a whole. Even afterwards, there were more than a few comments at sites like these looking for a muslim connection

Do we really want everybody out there with an agenda able to spin these situations into conspiracy theories? That may cut down on copycats, but it will only increase hysteria as people jump to conclusions about what the media or the government is hiding.

Unhinged right wingers will decide that he was an illegal immigrant with a muslim connection. Unhinged left wingers will decide that he was a born again gun nut who was brainwashed in a Jesus camp. Eventually these will become the narratives and anything less than full disclosure by the police will fail to satisfy them. Even then, people will be convinced that something is being held back. Just look at the JFK assasination for what contradictory information and lack off full disclosure can do to the facts.

Besides, this still does not change the fact that school shootings are rare and church shootings are rarer still. Changing policy around events that are, statistically, incredibly unlikely is foolish at best.

Thoughtful - suppressing the facts demonstrates to would-be copycats that we are afraid of them. There is nothing more empowering to a sociopath than his victim's fears.

As far as sympathy goes, I know quite a number of people that were somewhat understanding, if not sympathetic, to the VTech shooter before the truth came out.

Call him "the coward?"

I'm not saying we need to be neutral between killers and victims, but "the coward" seems both inapt and overly politicized, albeit in the name of good results.

We're cutting the media way too much slack here. They intentionally cover these stories in such a way as to emphasize the dark and scary menace posed by the wackjob, simply to increase their own circulation/viewership. They refer to the loon as a "gunman" or "armed intruder," emphasizing their power, they run any piece of garbage the nutcase decided he wanted to be remembered by, and they allow the freak to capture the consciousness of the entire nation, albeit for a short time. How can this not have an enticing effect on teenagers and others who feel powerless and maligned?

I concur with the RMN article that recommended that the media refer to the perps as "coward" or some other perjorative but accurate term, such as "sad misfit." Many of these folks were English majors; I'm sure they can develop an appropriate vocabulary on the topic if they so desire.

The media holds objectivity as their highest value. I think the value of human lives saved should trump objectivity when the truth is not compromised and their is no policy or other issue to be debated.

I certainly have compassion for the mentally ill. But when they take other lives, I think they forfeit the privilege of having us talk nice about them after they're gone.

I'm now sure how "coward" is "pejorative but accurate." A coward is defined as "a person who shows fear or timidity." On its face, that doesn't apply to mass killer. One might claim it does in a, 'They feel so bad about themselves that they need to hurt others therefore they are cowards,' but that's not accurate. That's a philosophical point that may or may not be accurate at all.

And on a broader scale, won't 'coward' be seen for what it is? A politically loaded term used in situations like these?

I have on any number of occasions submitted letters to the editors of various papers calling for a federally mandated seven day waiting period before sensational mass murders can be reported across state lines, as a sort of 'cooling-down' period. Oddly enough, they never get published. ;^)

Prior restraint is not an option.

I think Clayton means "square inches of newsprint per person killed". "Square inches per dead body" sounds pretty revolting as a measure...

For those advocating a guideline against publishing the killers' names, are you limiting that to cases in which the killer is already dead? (In his column, Mr. Kopel's point #4 -- do publish a gruesome photo of the dead killer -- implies this, but it wasn't made explicit elsewhere.) Because if the alleged murderer isn't dead and is standing trial, I think the public's (and the accused's) interest in an open judicial process trumps everything else. I would be very wary of keeping the defendant's name from the public, which could impair someone's ability to evaluate or contribute useful evidence about the case or point out some irregularity in the trial.

That doesn't strictly apply to situations when the murderer is dead, and I'm just thinking out loud here, but can we think of some circumstances where keeping even a dead killer's name from the public might be a significant boon for someone (whether the government or a third party) looking to frame an innocent person for the crime? Or somehow conceal details (like the identity of surviving conspirators or an ideological motivation) that the public does have an interest in knowing?

Not to mention, a norm against naming the killer creates a cartel problem, in economic terms -- anyone who breaks ranks and publishes the name when others don't could enjoy greatly increased readership/audience, and it only takes one defector to destroy most of the value of the cartel. This risk could be minimized by a strong public sentiment against publishing, but it would need to be nearly universal. That's one reason why the taboo against publishing the names of sexual assault victims works (most of the time), because virtually everyone agrees on it. For murderers, I don't think it would hold that well, particularly with today's decentralized media.

Bottom line, even if it is desirable I just don't see this succeeding without legal enforcement, which would not only be found unconstitutional by most American courts, but would also require changes to public records laws that could set dangerous precedents for withholding information.

Oren:

Prior restraint is not an option.

Oh, the Brady Bill is precedential.

Clayton,

I am interested in how you define "mass murders" (as opposed to, say, serial murders). If we use (what I had assumed) to be the common definition of mass murders- many people, one event, I am confused... how many non-gun killings are there that fit into this definition?

In other words, how often does one individual kill more than four people at a single event absent a firearm in the US? What are they using? Knives? Bats? Poison?

Or are you including multiple perpetrators/multiple events in your definition of mass murder?

Clayton-

Read you article. In addition to a possible sample size problem, the choice appears to be guns v. arson.

I think that speaks for itself. there's a mens rea difference. Arson is rarely done with the intent of killing people. To use the example of Escudero (one of three, BTW), he set a fire to scare people in a labor dispute, and it went out of control... typical arson.

Contrast that with (as you point out) Lizzie Borden. People are more scared of the psychopath who singles them out with an (axe, gun) than the byproduct of a fire that wasn't meant to kill them. Although sometimes you get big coverage because fire is scary (see Great White concert).

(The second case- Playland- fits a a little better in terms of the mens rea, but then your sample size is one)

I am interested in how you define "mass murders" (as opposed to, say, serial murders). If we use (what I had assumed) to be the common definition of mass murders- many people, one event, I am confused... how many non-gun killings are there that fit into this definition?

The article explains this. Happyland Social Club: 87 people killed because one guy, angry at his girlfriend, bought $1 worth of gasoline, poured it in the front entrance, and lit it.

The incident in Puerto Rico was labor union organizing that involved setting a fire to an occupied building. There were 98 people killed.

After the period that my study considered, there 168 (or 169, depending on how you count the "spare leg") killed in Oklahoma City with a truck bomb. And there have been a number of large death tolls from bombings over the years--one back in the 1920s where an upset person blew up a school board meeting.

Thoughtful writes:

I think Clayton means "square inches of newsprint per person killed". "Square inches per dead body" sounds pretty revolting as a measure...

Yup, that's what I meant. And reading the news accounts was pretty revolting as well. Especially when it became apparent that at least one of these murderers got the idea as a result of reading Time's grossly disproportionate, and probably politically motivated coverage of Patrick Purdy's murders.

Only law professor nerds and lawyer dorks would think that potential serial killers care about what's on the front page of the newspaper.

The only thing that matters to these young killers is TELEVISION. They want to be on television.

And they want the security store camera footage of their rampage up on YouTube.

Get with the times. Focus on the actual problem.