Disease Behind the Crime?

Milaskha Mukhia

Prof. Matthew Nicholas

Writing the Essay: Science

Progression 3 Final Essay  

Disease Behind the Crime?

The thought of dying is daunting, but the scarier part is when one thinks about how they might die. Out of all the ways one can die, being randomly picked as a target and shot dead seems like one of the most terrifying. Sixteen people faced this tragic and horrific fate, when Charles Whitman fired at people from the top of a tower in the University of Texas (UT), Austin, on August 1st, 1966. In addition to the on campus killings, Whitman wounded thirty-six others on campus, and earlier in the day he also killed the two individuals he loved most, his wife and his mother. This event, dubbed “The Texas Tower Shooting” remains as one of the most confusing yet interesting case for a range of different and conflicting views from the supporters of science like neurologists and supporters of ethics like human right activists to the often confused general public. An examination of Whitman’s post mortem revealed a small nickel sized tumor which was encroaching the amygdala in his brain (Wikipedia). The amygdala is known to be involved with the experience of emotions and social control and scientists speculated that the tumor discovered in Whitman’s brain actually made his amygdala dysfunctional, thus, causing him to act the way he did. This speculation is one of the major case aspects that has raised numerous questions and kept everyone engrossed in this polemical case, even after fifty years since it took place.

          Correctional psychologists Ronald R Mellen and Nancy B Mellen support the theory that Whitman’s tumor affected his actions in their study case paper, “Brain Dysfunctions and Predispositions.” The authors make their case by analyzing Whitman’s personal notes, which he wrote prior to being shot down by the police on the tower. Whitman writes, “I don’t understand myself these days. I am supposed to be an average seasonable and intelligent young man. However, lately I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts…After my death I wish that an autopsy would be performed on me to see if there is any visible physical disorder.” It was true, Charles Whitman, as described by close friends and family, used to be an all American boy – a popular and kind hearted good student, Eagle scout and athletic ex-marine. The authors believed that explaining the killer’s motive without including the possibility of the tumor affecting Whitman’s actions was illogical and didn’t make sense. On this they write, “He (Whitman, my italics) stated in his personal notes...his comments reflected the degree of brain dysfunction with which he was struggling. He left behind the request that doctors do an autopsy on his brain to prevent others from engaging in the types of behaviors that he was about to carry out” (Mellen), asserting that even Whitman-to some extent- felt that his tumor was causing him to act in a demented way. The authors even provide evidence from Whitman’s psychiatrist, whose notes reveal that Whitman was a “massive, muscular youth who seemed to be oozing with hostility…(and his sense) that something seemed to be happening to him and he didn’t seem to be himself”, also referring to Whitman’s apparent statement of “thinking about going up on the tower with a deer rifle and start shooting people.” Considering and analyzing the vast amount of evidence the authors collected, they came to a consensus that, “Given that Whitman was fighting these horrendous impulses, it is clear that his cognitive/emotional abilities had been significantly compromised by his brain dysfunctions.”  The authors claim that the brain is a complex machine and its damage could lead to huge amounts of unfortunate consequences, and that, “the field of biology is adding to our psychological and social understanding of offender behavior.” However, that leads to the question of Whitman’s manipulated motive behind his killings: was he simply a good man turned bad by the tumor? Or was there a bigger picture behind this story?

         R. Mellen and N. Mellen strongly only seem to consider the scientific hypothesis of Whitman’s offender behavior, however, according to the Director of Admissions of UT, Gary Lavergne, considering the ‘yet to be proved’ tumor hypothesis with such zeal would only “blind us to the obvious” (Lavergne). In his essay, “The Legacy of Texas Tower Sniper”, Lavergne discusses his book “A Sniper in the Tower”, which strongly asserts that Charles Whitman was simply a cold-blooded murderer who was not as he seemed to be. Lavergne, in opposition to R. Mellen and N. Mellen believes that Whitman was indeed “fully conscious of what he was doing and couldn’t have done it otherwise”(Lavergne) The case police reports suggest that Whitman had in fact carefully planned out his steps: he had the appropriate weapons and ammunition, he chose the perfect vantage point with a great coverage, and he use a fake employee I.D card to enter the building, and according to Lavergne all of this showcased Whitman’s intent to inflict the greatest possible damage and conduct the most effective killings. Although all the different possible theories like the tumor impinging Whitman’s amygdala; his poor financial status, traumatic childhood with an abusive father, and failing marriage; and his prior military training as a Marine made him ‘want’ to kill were present, Lavergne disregarded them all as they apparently made no sense to him, asserting that, “Charles Whitman was a murderer who killed innocent people. We should not forget that.”

Lavergne and Mellens’ contradicting view on Whitman’s case brings about a confusion as to what the real answer to this case is. Neurologist, David Eagleman considers both Lavergne and Mellens’ views on this case, as he discusses the advances in brain science and its relation with criminal acts, in his article, “The Brain on Trial”. Eagleman believes that biology has a huge impact on the way we think and carry out our activities. On this he quotes, “human behavior cannot be separated from human biology.” He believes that the tumor that Charles Whitman had grown on his amygdala could’ve indeed affected his gruesome act of murder. However, Eagleman also believes that humans can account for their free choices which can affect their actions without the involvement of biology too. Thus, he also questions whether Whitman’s actions could ever be blamed or justified solely based on his tumor, as his free will of choosing to kill could’ve also been present, just concealed under the mask of going mentally unstable. Eagleman, however, introduces the concept of advancing technology and its possible huge role in neurolaw by cracking cases induced by mental instability like that of Whitman. The introduction of neurolaw and its possible advancement raises the question of whether we could ever only blame Whitman’s biology (genetic makeup/mutation) for his actions.