Sarah Palin's "Blood Libel" Speech Refudiates Accountability

Sarah Palin's "blood libel" video has gotten a tremendous amount of media coverage since its unveiling Wednesday morning. Although many believe she used the historically hurtful term, "blood libel," in a display of ignorance, there is absolutely no doubt that part of Sarah Palin's speech, the part dedicated to singling out the suspected Arizona shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, as the sole person or isolated actor responsible for the criminal act, also indicates ignorance. Because to say that Loughner's alleged act of violence that killed a federal judge, a 9-year-old girl and four others simply begins and ends with his criminal act -- as Palin claims during her video speech -- is to refute -- or "refudiate," if you will -- common sense and what is known about human behavioral patterns.

In her "blood libel" video, Palin -- in response to the negative criticism she (and other right-wing political firebrands) has endured for her perceived vitriolic and sometimes inciting rhetoric, considered by some to be a contributing factor to the tragic shootings in Arizona Saturday -- spoke about personal responsibility. She referred to President Ronald Reagan's quote on accountability:

"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."

Palin then goes on to say, "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election."

But they do not "begin and end with the criminals who commit them." Criminals are not born from nor do they exist in a vacuum. A criminal act makes a criminal a criminal, but all sorts of factors contribute to the makeup of an individual that becomes a criminal. Unless the criminal completely lives in a psychotic state, where everything they have known and continue to experience is perceived as something other than what it actually is, their life is influenced by each experience and stimulus. And as one's experiences influence what one becomes and what one does, so too do the individual stimuli add to the continuing life experience of that individual.

Although President Reagan was arguably correct that society cannot ultimately be held accountable for the decisions made by criminals and their acts, Palin attempts to dodge or duck her own responsibility for ideas and influences that could have possibly contributed to the criminal's state of mind that eventually triggered his decision to commit the act. It is now believed that the alleged killer, Loughner, actually contemplated at least the killing of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords at the Tucson gathering Saturday. It has yet to be determined what might have provided him with motivation, influenced his planning, or "triggered" his violent act.

There is no doubt that the idea simply did not appear out of nowhere.

This is not to say the suspect was not responsible for his actions. Only trained psychological professionals and a court of law can determine whether or not the suspect was responsible for his actions and therefore to be held accountable for the act. Otherwise, the shooter was responsible and should be held accountable. However, the decisions that the Arizona shooting suspect made to arrive at that moment in time with that handgun and the subsequent decisions that saw the firing of that gun all were supported by precursor experiences and thought processes that led to the act of shooting. Although it is quite plausible that the shooting suspect formulated every idea he ever perceived, and every thought afterward was only influenced by his own experiences and thoughts, it is highly unlikely.

As psychologist and neuroscientist Dr. Drew Weston pointed out in the debate concerning the "blood libel" video in "The Arena" on Politico's website, Rep. Giffords also understood the consequences of an action -- such as Palin posting a map with crosshairs on it over the districts in which there were incumbent politicians of opposing political views that needed to be eliminated (albeit on Election Day via the ballot box). Weston notes that those consequences, whether intended or unintended, are the end results of "what neuroscientists call priming, the influence of a prior stimulus on a later reaction, usually unconsciously."

The criminal act does not begin and end with the criminal. President Reagan's comment does not obviate the idea that the criminal could have been influenced by his environment or that there are social influences at work that urge or prompt an individual in a particular direction. He simply stated that in the end, the criminal act must become the responsibility of the individual that committed the crime.

That does not mean that those who produce acts or ideas that influence cannot be or should not be held accountable for their actions as well as the criminal. Personal accountability also extends to the acts of those that influence. It is why Charles Manson remains behind bars and why prosecutions are made against those who conspire to commit a criminal act.

The suspected Arizona shooter did not live in a vacuum. Palin has tendered the idea that just because the shooter should be held responsible for his criminal act that it began and ended there. It did not. She supported her claim by invoking a quote of personal accountability attributed by President Reagan. But President Reagan's comment of not looking to society to blame for a criminal act does not obviate personal responsibility or accountability for what one might do as a member of that society.

There are consequences for actions.

The Arizona shooter will undoubtedly suffer the legal and personal consequences of his violent and criminal action, as it should be. But Palin wants a free pass on accountability for her actions, attempting to disguise her acts -- that might or might not have had the unintended consequences of triggering an already psychologically primed individual -- as part of the vague and unblameable society concept. Either that, or she truly believes what she says, that a criminal act begins and ends with the individual criminal, an idea that only works on a compartmentalized level and shows inordinate ignorance of human behavioral patterns, of cause and effect -- a surprise given Palin's proven ability to manipulate.

Was Palin responsible for the act of violence committed Saturday in Tucson? No, because that responsibility ultimately rests with the individual who made the decision to act criminally. But is she responsible for factors that might have had a causative effect on his decisions? Possibly. Certainly fomenting an environment that condones violent action, commingled with violent speech and violent images, is not conducive to less violent acts or decisions to act.

Because what one says and does have consequences.

Palin seems to forget in her "blood libel" video outreach of proposed non-accountability for herself (and those that continually seek to inflame, incite, and agitate) the one overriding precept of those that believe in the natural order of things, something to which she publicly states adherence: Nature abhors a vacuum.

******

Sources:

"Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength," Vimeo.com

Drew Weston, comment in "The Arena," Politico.com