Two Cides, the Same Worthless Coin

Who decided? Who made the rules? Who decided which behavior we’re to meet with compassion, and which with castigation?

How come someone who survives a suicide attempt gets treatment, and someone who attempts a homicide gets soul-decay in prison?

Why do we treat guilt but punish shame? Who decided guilt was okay, but shame should just warrant more shaming?

I’m weighing in on this as someone who has had a run-in with a period of suicidal ideation. I don’t think I deserve to go to jail because of it. That’s not what I’m saying at all. I was very unwell, teeming with guilt, and I had thoughts. I do not feel solely responsible for them and certainly do not feel I should be punished for them. But the thoughts got me thinking.

I got help for being broken—for being saturated with a self-directed derision and despondence. It was called depression, and people helped to heal. People rushed to help me heal and I am grateful.

Why is someone driven toward hatred to the point of homicide received so differently? The two circumstances—a drive to suicide and a drive to homicide—are closely related. Both are, in the end, a misdirected drive to violence.

Anyone who commits or attempts homicide needs to be controlled. That’s horrifying, dangerous, I know. And maybe to some degree punished. Maybe incarceration is one way to do that. Maybe. I’m not saying justice is illusory—a mere phantom of our moral impulses. A sense of justice might close up openings for more violence. In that way it’s practical. But these people also need support. They need healing. You have to be pretty profoundly tormented to end someone’s life, in much the same way you do to end your own.

So why are suicides tragic, and homicides enraging? Why do suicides get treatment and compassion, while homicides get contempt and incarceration? Suicide is met with love, so why homicide with hatred? I detect some inconsistencies in how we are responding. I think we need to get our consciences on the same page. And if we have to choose, my vote is for page one. For treatment and compassion. For love over hatred. Maybe we can revamp the language. Control, rehabilitation, instead of punishment. I don’t know. It has to start somewhere.

I guess the argument against mine would be the obvious. In one case, a person is taking his own life; in the other, he is taking the life of someone else. That’s essentially the definition of things. The latter, however, seems to rattle our sensibilities when it comes to personal agency and control. There seems greater violation in the violent equation. But if the end result is suicide or homicide, I’d be willing to bet agency and control toppled out the window well before the act was committed. The act is only the shattering on the ground below. And in the end, the result is identical. The result is a pile of irreparable pieces. The result is the wrongful ending of a precious human life.

The big difference, again, is shame versus guilt. “So those groups who are primarily exposed to feelings of shame and innocence would primarily blame and punish others, and would thus be more likely to commit homicide than suicide; whereas those who are statistically more likely to be exposed to feelings of guilt and pride (i.e. the privileged) would have a higher ratio of suicide to homicide (since they have only themselves to blame for their problems—given the power, advantages and freedom they enjoy).” Thank you, Dr. Gilligan.

Shame versus guilt. We treat guilt and punish shame, leading to more shame, leading to more violence. We've got it all wrong.

This was very tersely thought out, and therefore, poorly developed. I’m sure there are gaping holes to widen in this veneer of a proposition. I thought I should get the ball rolling though, as a modest contribution to what needs to be a much, much bigger conversation.

Prayers as always for those lives taken, and for those who live with so much illness, guilt, shame, and hatred, that they take those lives. Neither is what God wants, I wouldn’t think.