This fall, the quiet, unassuming town of Cazenovia, Wis., was struck by tragedy when Eric Hainstock brought a gun to school and shot his principal, John Klang. Last week, a court decided Hainstock will be tried as an adult rather than a juvenile.
Trying a 16-year-old as an adult, and presumably sending him to jail for the rest of his life, is not advantageous because it does not solve the core problem. However, the more liberal approach of putting him on trial in juvenile court could be worse due to the unreliability of rehabilitation programs—his release would only risk more innocent lives.
While proponents on both ends of the spectrum have their strong points, they both fall short because they fail to address violence prevention.
The lesson we must take from this tragedy is that we need to come up with different approaches to dealing with arbitrary acts of violence. Conservative and liberal methods do not adequately address the root causes.
Instead of playing a bitter, partisan tug of war that only results in discord, opposing sides should collaborate and form a more comprehensive approach to prevent catastrophes like this one. Then, preventative programs should be initiated to identify individuals who could potentially be violent.
It is possible that this type of preventative program could have recognized Hainstock's untreated trauma, which built up over time and resulted in his explosive surge of violence. Hainstock's upbringing and environment before the shooting were laden with abuse and constant bullying. Given these circumstances, critics maintain Hainstock ought to be given a second chance at life by being tried as a juvenile and treated for his extensive psychological disturbances.
However, these people fail to recognize that it is wrong to risk any more innocent lives, which is exactly what a juvenile trial for him would do. Hainstock murdered an innocent human being without provocation. This makes him extremely dangerous. If tried as a juvenile, Hainstock would be freed by the age of 25, regardless of whether he successfully completed treatment for the mental and emotional factors that propelled his rampage.
Although the dream of rehabilitating criminals and reintegrating them into society seems within grasp, most attempts at realizing this vision have proven futile. Rehabilitation programs for criminals are hit or miss. Research shows they work for some people, sometimes. It's not fair to put others' lives at risk to see if a rehab program could work for Hainstock.
Ultimately, although the ""tough on crime"" route is the better option in this case, it is still not good enough. Trying Hainstock as an adult does not guarantee this will never happen again—it only lowers his chance of release. There would also be reduced access to psychological treatment in adult prison compared with juvenile incarceration, so if he is released, it is not reasonable to automatically assume Hainstock will have magically reformed while in jail.
Moreover, prison is a very psychologically jarring atmosphere, as people have no control over their lives. This lack of individual empowerment can lead to strain. So if he was released, after, say 25 years, would he really be less of a threat to society? The answer is probably not.
Furthermore, although it may not be the school's responsibility to get directly involved, it obviously should. In fact, the gravity of the situation may require it. Most importantly, we need to be open to a variety of approaches if we are going to find a solution to this complicated and tragic issue.
Above all, intervention and empathy need to be emphasized in any effective program to prevent the deaths of innocent people in the first place. Otherwise, our society is going to continue to hastily sweep the bloody aftermath under the ""tough on crime"" carpet by simply locking away teen offenders.
