The story is old. A tragedy occurs. The media is on its like flies on shit. Morbid fascination grips the public, and there is air time to fill.  And so the calls are made.

Is it gun control?  Is it medical school? Is it drugs? Prescription or illegal? Is he insane? Is there a tumor in his brain pressing against whatever bit stops other people from mass murder?

The media has at least one, though more likely a team, of anchors and reporters with a laundry list of questions based upon whatever agenda pops into someone’s mind when faced with a tragedy about which they know nothing.  And if they have questions, they need a warm body to pretend to give answers, even though the questions already fully incorporate the answers within them. Still, a grunt or nod from some outsider with an exaggerated title makes it official.

As if anybody has a clue.

That we want to know what happened and, as if it changes anything, why, comes as no surprise.  The shooting of 70, murder of 12 at this moment, is without question a crime of horrible magnitude.  The senselessness of such a crime, the nature of such tragedy, gives rise to our need to know, to put it into some context that will allow us to feel for those who are dead and wounded, for their families, while separating it from our own world. 

That journalists have a duty to report is fully understandable.  But the reporting ends where the facts run dry.  The 24/7 news cycle doesn’t mean that there is information sufficient to fill the available time, or commentary about the information that illuminates anything.  The story is raw. The known facts are limited.  And yet, media abhors a vacuum.

Eventually, we may know what drove the Aurora shooter, James Holmes, to do what he did. Maybe. Maybe enough information can be pieced together to present at least a reasonable guess. Maybe we will never know what really went on in his head.

Take note of every name of every person providing commentary about this tragedy today. Later on, you can pick whether they are a fool, a liar or a media whore. What they cannot be, by definition, is credible, as there is nothing to be credible about.  And yet they not only talk, but having willingly put on their TV finest and traveled to the studio to seize the opportunity to get their face on the telly.

They make everyone who hears their voice stupider. They don’t care.

Not only are lawyers not immune from this folly, but detached, educated, thoughtful professionals that we are, we lead the assault on intelligence when an opportunity like this comes along.  It’s hardly shocking that lawyers flock toward the klieg lights, for it’s a well-established fact that being ever-ready to comment leads toward fabulous wealth and prestige, but that they succumb to the same delusional belief that they may actually have a basis to belief the pap they spout in the process.

Which makes  this reaction all the more disturbing:

Though I am sure hard-core death penalty abolitionists feel differently, I cannot help but find some comfort in the fact that the state which just experienced the worst mass shooting in US history still has capital punishment.  

*  *  *

In the immediate aftermath of these sorts of horrific mass killings, I find it so very hard to react with my head without also listening to my heart.  And in these kind of awful cases, my heart (or is it my gut) often suggests to me that ultimate punishment of death is the only one which feels fitting.

While this is the sort of response one would expect from a fellow like Bill Otis, who would rationalize the merit of executing a serial jaywalker, and who offered this comment:

A society unable or unwilling to recognize this man as having earned a trip out of this world is a society that no longer cares about the basic rules of civilized life (or its own safety, for that matter).

But this is no different than anyone who exists to push their agenda, as gun advocates, anti-gun advocates and medical school haters.  Any excuse will do.

What cannot be explained is why, having utterly no idea what gave rise to this tragedy, would anyone feel it appropriate, no less necessary, to sentence the shooter to death.  Even for those who support such punishment, can’t it wait until you have a clue?  And for those who seek to be taken seriously as a scholar and academic, the inability to keep a clear head while those around you have lost theirs is inexcusable. This is reckless and irresponsible.

All of this is reckless and irresponsible.