If it's not the usual suspects who constantly advocate weak laws and insufficient punishment for crime, who, then, holds the responsibility for...well...our weak laws and insufficient punishment when it comes to crime?

With the right kind of laws and penalties, we could really minimize crime. Potential criminals would truly fear prison. But what it would take would cause many, including some of this forum, to start wringing their clammy hands in worry.

The reason that most school administrators turn a blind eye to bullying is their "head in the sand" approach. If they don't recognize, they don't have to deal with it, which means they don't have to report it and deal with all the red tape involved. In NY, these incidents get reported to Albany and those numbers get published. Naturally, the administration doesn't want that - they want the school to seem like ShangriLa, so they bury it or ignore it.

So we're going to blame this phyco on the teachers? Always somebody else's fault.

I was commenting on Ivy's post as to why bullies aren't punished, not handing out blame. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he's to blame for his own actions. There are thousands of teenagers that are bullied every day, and they don't shoot up their schools.

Ok I agree with that. However I still say we skin him then use the Guillotine

Bring out old sparky!

Another reason they do so is because they know there will be no repercussions for ignoring it.

Unfortunately, that's true. I find that most parents are at one end of the spectrum or the other in their children's lives - they're either hovering and over-involved or they ignore them, very little grey area.

If we want to continue a discussion, let's keep it civilised. There's no use in name calling, like "you don't know anything about psychology" or "Your moral compass is non-existent." If we don't agree that there can be disagreement, why should we discuss at all?

So, here's where I agree:
- The guy who did this is obviously a sociopath, probably a psychopath too.
- He deserves to be punished severely or (if he's mentally disabled) to be put in an institution.
- The crime is outrageous, and what happened in the courtroom is outrageous too. And it's difficult to understand what makes a person to such a thing.
- The judge should have taken him out of the courtroom.


But what do you guys really mean when you say "He's an animal", except that it's some kind of expression of your anger?
I have been being blamed here for being anti-American, anti-Western. Well, I'm not. I believe in law and order which is a cornerstone of the American and all western societies. I don't believe in torture or treating people like animals, which is something you usually find in totalitarian countries. That's North Korean or Nazi Germany style.

I think that the discussion "Who's fault is it" is almost useless. Human behaviour is always a mixture of genetic programming, education and social circumstances. That doesn't mean that we're not responsible for what we're doing.
Still, I believe, it's interesting to know what makes a man do such things. What made him different from the rest of his fellow human beings? To understand doesn't mean to excuse.