Author bias may have clouded this week’s chapter, but the facts are there and the ethical and emotional issues are certainly available for discussion. This is the story of Leonard Smith, a man who just couldn’t seem to catch a break. His difficult early life, his rocky relationship, and his constant job fluctuation make him a poster child for the idea that life just isn’t fair. The author points out that his life can serve to explain why he murdered Lyman Bystock, a successful baseball star, but he raises the question: does it excuse such conduct? The juries in both of his trials (a second was required due to a hung jury) thought so. He received a not guilty by reason of insanity charge and walked out of jail following seven months of psychiatric treatment and evaluation. The author has little to no tolerance for this story and this idea: … “there is no principle of criminal law or American jurisprudence that suggests that culpability for crimes is to be measured by the hardness of the violator’s life.” I’m sure many (probably all) of you can agree with this at face value. So what was it about Leonard that made it possible for a jury and several psychiatrists to ignore this idea?
Lenoard’s early life was marked by a rocky family life. His biological father had left when he was three and he realized early on that four of his five brothers and sisters had different last names. This inability to make a lasting bond with his dad wracked his entire life; as you will see, much of his life was spent trying to maintain the perfect family and father image. As Leonard grew older, he watched even more marriages fall apart. Both his sisters’ husbands left them and both his sisters either attempted or successfully committed suicide. After such a tragedy, Leonard realized how necessary it is to keep trying; both of his sisters had stopped trying to early and life and swallowed them whole. Leonard desperately wanted his life to be a success, but it is easy to see how vulnerable his family history and genetic code may have left him.
To some degree, Leonard was able to achieve his goals. He graduated from high school and went to work with a local railroad company, with his eyes set on becoming a train engineer. During this time he met Barbara Smith, a young woman (18 years to Leonard’s 23) who had given birth the previous year. Soon the two moved in together and Leonard began looking forward to a life with a pretty girlfriend, a good job, and a baby to whom he could he the father he never had. He knew (or thought he knew) what a good family structure ought to look like and he was determined to make his own that way. That was where his relationship troubles started…and continued for a number of years. He and Barbara frequently diverged on expectations and violent arguments became a frequent reality in their relationship.
Leonard’s job life fell apart soon as well. He did eventually get his dream job as an engineer but his long commute and tardiness got him fired. He tried several other jobs that all similarly seemed to end in failure. This was not for lack of trying; Leonard had a high school degree and completed a federal job training program in hopes of getting on the right path. In the midst of all this, he and Barbara broke up and he fathered an illegitimate child, who he never met. He and Barbara did eventually get back together, get married, and have a child together. Barbara even went back to school and learned to be a court reporter. None of this seemed to alleviate their rocky and violent relationship, however. Barbara eventually left again and made steps to file for divorce. At this point Leonard became withdrawn; the author describes that he “didn’t seem to want friends. He was obsessed with getting Barbara and the kids to return and with their being a family again.” He made several attempts to work things out and when it finally looked like the two might be a family again, Lyman Bystock arrived in his hometown of Gary, Indiana. Through mutual friends, Barbara and Lyman met that night and Leonard happened to see the two of them walking together on Johnson Street. This set him off and he killed Lyman that night.
Leonard’s first defense? He was unable to recall the shooting. He claimed that he remembered the sight of his wife and some man and then a blank. Yet this added to the list of reasons why an insanity defense could be viable for him in court, a list that included family history and Leonard’s obsession with maintaining a good home and family life. Dr. Hogle, the psychiatrist hired for the first trial, concluded that Leonoard was sane. The jury, however, couldn’t get past his stressful history and his past with Barbara and the trial ended in a hung jury. The psychiatrist hired in the next trial explained that Leonard was a schizophrenic personality and, if pushed too far, would not be able to control himself. This explanation helped give reason to the jury’s sympathy and, as stated earlier, Leonard was off with a NGRI verdict within a year.
So what constitutes a “schizophrenic personality?” Schizophrenia as a disorder can manifest itself in a variety of ways. There actually is not a discrete definition (which is excessively frustrating for psych majors like me who like their disorders categorical and easy to identify). Leonard certainly demonstrates some of the symptoms of this disorder: paranoia, withdrawal, delusions/obsessions, and (alleged) blackout. Additionally, we know that schizophrenic symptoms are quite heritable, and the actions of his sisters also suggest schizophrenia or at least depression. Finally, schizophrenic symptoms are brought on or worsened by stressful situations…and Leonard’s situation definitely provides an idea breeding ground for these symptoms. Yet for all of this evidence I still have a hard time believing that Leonard’s symptoms caused him to be out of control. Reading his story I noticed the symptoms, but they did not seem severe enough to impair his being a coherent man with power over his morals.
Now for the ethical situation at hand: is the difficulty of a life EVER grounds to dismiss a person’s actions? Leonard’s unlucky life led to a possible mental disorder and a definitely a constant feeling or instability. Yet he made a choice to kill Lyman Bystock. To me the jury’s mistake was in defining justice as a reward for a difficult life. After all, they might argue, doesn’t Jesus bless the meek and the mourners? Doesn’t Leonard deserve a break? I would say, first of all, that yes of course Jesus blesses these people. But he blessed the meek and the mourners because they choose to make the right choice in the face of adversity and they choose not to let a tragic situation get the better of them. Leonard did try but he unfortunately couldn’t take it anymore and snapped. Who knows where he—and Lyman—would be if he had made the choice to hold on a bit longer?
No comments:
Post a Comment