Reeling and Reacting

The shock and horror both slowly and rapidly receding in our collective consciousness, I think it’s pretty clear that the Jewish community has begun to breathe again after the brutal murder of Leiby Kletzky. And that’s the way it should be. For those not directly involved in the criminal investigation and certainly for those outside the immediate circle of family and friends, it is unhealthy and unproductive to continue to obsess over the lurid details of the heinous crime.

But it’s not simply a matter of “unproductive”. There’s an even greater offense in continuing to ogle at the tragic spectacle. For me, I confess that even raising the issue at all feels like objectifying or even exploiting the memory of a victim and a bereft family. It’s hard to tease out the distinctive difference between indulgingly creating some kind of horrific ‘entertainment’ and coping with reality, a reality that is proximally close but still consolingly distant for the masses.

The personal distance, of course, is the critical issue. Even if I go out of my way to send a note of condolence, even if I engage in such a gesture of empathy, how can I claim that it’s truly personal? And if it is not personal, how can I be anything but an unwanted and somewhat callous spectator, standing around and shaking my head, but doing nothing to help?

As such, to a profound degree, I think it behooves us, as the public to close our mouths, and even our eyes, and to move along. Wherever and however we can help the family and the community, it is absolutely necessary to do so. But let us not indulge in a spectacle.

Critically, however, in another sense, the final word waits to be spoken. This has little to do with the fate of the perpetrator; let the authorities gather the evidence and respond in the appropriate fashion. For the public, the final word means learning a substantial lesson and ensuring that these sickening events cannot, G-d forbid, repeat themselves.

Herein, undoubtedly, lays the great challenge. What can we possibly learn? We are talking, in this instance, about a faceless anonymous criminal with no prior criminal record. He had been described as eccentric, perhaps socially awkward, and sometimes even alarming. But he had never actually done anything! Are we going to lock up or institutionalize every person who’s a little quirky just because he makes someone uncomfortable? Such a direction is beyond absurd.

Alternatively, to speak of heeding a call for more responsible parenting, to my mind, is also misplaced. Again, we are speaking about a child who was properly prepared in advance for his walk; and his parents were ready and waiting for him in the appointed place. That doesn’t mean that parents shouldn’t be exceptionally vigilant, that children shouldn’t be prepared and warned. It goes without saying that even responsible children (and adults!) can be victimized and must be prepared as much as possible with sensible guidelines and effective strategies. But that was already patently obvious, even as it was obvious to the victims in this case. This is not the place for such a lesson.

Without claiming to hold the answer, I feel strongly that we can and must dig a little deeper and act a bit wider. Let us step back for a moment and review the situation. The shocking crime came at the hands of a profoundly unstable individual; that he could do such a thing speaks of gross emotional illness, point. It does not exonerate anyone, and it doesn’t make him a safe neighbor - but it does describe how he came to commit this crime. Let us speculate for a moment that the emotionally ill criminal has been exposed to numerous acts of fictional violence, much in the same way that most of us have, through television and film, print media, and games. Might this exposure have had some kind of subconscious influence on his brutal behavior? How might his emotional illness have expressed itself if the criminal had never in his life been exposed to graphic violence? Instead of brutality, would the criminal perhaps have demonstrated verbal anger, perhaps theft, property violence, or simply some other profoundly bizarre but entirely benign act? Would he, in turn, have come to this?

With all the training in behavioral psychology that I do not have, I would not be so naive and so bold as to claim that all violence would be eliminated with the removal of violent stimuli. At the same time, I know that I am influenced by visual stimuli. I vividly recall myself as a pre-teen, literally running up and down my parents’ living room pretending to slam dunk in the doorposts while I was watching a professional basketball game. And while my particular story may be unique, the general phenomenon is not. There is no question that people are influenced to some degree or another by the images to which they are exposed. Therefore, there can be no question that a society that watches repeated acts of graphic violence will also be a more violent society.

What am I suggesting? Am I advocating censorship and the legislation to undo the sacred rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press? Not quite. Such measures are unrealistic and dangerous in other ways. But if we will be honest with ourselves, we will acknowledge that explicit violent entertainment is corrosive and destructive, with very little positive return.

If there is any morality in the capitalistic and opportunistic world of entertainment, producers and directors of television and film, as well as graphic artists and game programmers, must pause and ask themselves how they should react to the kidnapping and murder of an innocent child. Though it would be easy to deny or underplay it, these people influence the thoughts and behaviors of the entire world; and their self-imposed restraint and discretion could save lives.

For the rest of us plebeians, the common consumers of such entertainment, we may also wield our influence. The time has come for us to think twice before spending our money to watch someone brutally abuse another in the name of entertainment. We wouldn’t dream of paying anyone to pour chemical toxins into the water supply, so why do we readily pay for others to pour emotional toxins into our heads?

I know what it sounds like. It sounds like Sunday morning television or a radio broadcast from a Congressman from south of the Mason-Dixon Line. It seems radical and extreme. But let’s ask the uncomfortable question. What else would we do to protect the next victim?