Murder and Social Endorsement Part 1

2 December 2008 – Denver, Co, USA For the first time ever, I just wrote a long blog entry that I am not sure that I can post. It is in response to  Nancy Lofholm’s story, Autism’s terrible toll: Parents risk hitting “a breaking point,” in the Denver Post. It tells the story of  focused around the murder of Jacob Grabe who had Asperger syndrome and was allegedly shot to death by his father Allen on September 11, 2008 (see previous icad post Autism: Recent toll of violence from September, 2008).I don’t know if I can post it because it started as  reasonable critique of the original story, and why I think it excuses murder and encourages other murderers, but becomes increasingly emotional and angry, perhaps too angry. So I will try this again in two parts, starting with the emotional part to get it out of the way. Here  goes.

Murder is wrong and there is no good excuse for it.

Murdering any child is a despicable act.

Murdering one’s own child is as bad as murdering someone else’s.

Murdering a child with autism is just as bad as murdering any other child.

Most people who murder other people are experiencing stress and significant challenges in their lives of one kind or another. 

Being stressed is not an excuse for murder.

I am particularly incensed at people who commit murder and then tell us how much they love the victim that they murder. 

Suggesting that parenting a child with a disability is so challenging or stressful that killing these children is somehow understandable or excusable is no better than endorsing any other kind of murder.

Suggesting that parenting a child with a disability is so challenging or stressful that killing these children is somehow understandable or excusable adds to the probability that other parents will kill their children, because sick minds struggling with the impulse to kill can be assisted to go over the edge by social endorsements, which help them to rationalize murder.

Many families of children with autism do face significant challenges and should get the help that they need.

Using murders such as this to imply that unless families get what they need, there will be more murders is a dangerous and unethical form of advocacy. It will contribute to future deaths, and treats children as moral hostages to their families.

Let’s save our respect and empathy for the parents who go on facing challenges day after day, and recognize the child murderers who fail to face these challenges for who they are. Parents who kill children with autism are no better or worse than parents who kill any other child.

In Part 2, I will address a more reasoned discussion.

Tags: Autism