January 2002 Volume 83 Number 1 "serving the protectors"
By Trevor Haskell PASA Vice President

A senseless act

We often read or hear about acts being senseless. Those of us who believe there is a rational belief system behind all behaviour are often bemused by the concept of senseless acts. We believe that, while the outcomes may not make sense or be intended, there is a reason for all behaviour.

Humans have the capacity to act and react with reason. So does every act have a reason? I would argue – yes. All animals act and react with reason, and that is why, despite instincts that would tell an animal to attack, we can teach them not to.

The capacity to reason is one of the measures of intelligence. To be able to feel, think, deduce, ascribe and decide is what stands humans out from other species. Thus we own our behaviour. Our reactions to events are our choices – there are few “had to dos” in our lives.

The search for past experiences that, in people’s lives, have become part of their current belief system is where I travel with some clients at Welfare Section. Taking the time to understand the joys and pains of our growth into the people we are today can help explain why my needs and wants in life are different from another’s needs and wants. Once I understand my beliefs, I can reassess them to see if I want to retain them and then truly own my feelings, thoughts and responses to the behaviour of others who impact on me.

Without such insights into ourselves we can become so regular in our responses that we move from feeling to action or reaction without thinking. When we do this, we try to avoid ownership by saying: “I had to do it”. Sometimes, the choices are all pretty ordinary, but there are few things in life about which there isn’t some choice.

Workplace bullies act for a reason. For others observing or feeling the brunt of the behaviours, it may seem senseless but there is a purpose. Sadly, bullies might not understand their own behaviour, because they are not thinking about why they are doing it. They might have become unthinking drones to their own history, beliefs of self and life around them. They are often surprised when confronted by the consequences of their behaviour on others.

A murder occurs. It is described as a senseless act. The question is – to whom? If it made no sense, why would anyone have done the act? In reality, the behaviours leading to the murder have sense to the person carrying them out. There was a purpose to the behaviour for that individual. The outcomes may not have been predicted, wanted nor foreseen by the individual or those around him or her.

A person drink-driving does not do it to have a collision. One does it to achieve a need – to get to some place. One chooses to ignore the risks. Are those who get to their chosen place without incident criminals? If they have collisions with minor damage, are they criminals? If they kill people, are they criminals? The reasoning behind the behaviour is the same, but the outcomes are different. Thus all the actions were sensible to the same degree but the outcomes were divergent.

If I were to judge and apportion penalty, would I see all acts as the same? This is some of the difficulty that faces those who decide when and what to prosecute. It also faces those who must adjudicate a penalty at some later time.

The media usually report on very limited exploration of the issues behind the commission of offences. Defence solicitors will often try to create the causal effect of previous life events. We might cynically dismiss the defence arguments, but the “why” of a behaviour is the critical issue for those who must judge. The facts might show the behaviour occurred without question, but to get any sense of justice there must be an answer to the “why”.

PASAweb   Index & Search   Top of Page   Comments   Email to Editor

The Police Journal Online is an official publication of the Police Association of South Australia and is published monthly. Editors of kindred publications can seek permission from the Editor to re-publish any Police Journal Online article. Copyright 2001  The Police Association of South Australia sustance