Returning the ticket
I am saddened by this news.
Three-year-old Katherine McCarron had retreated into her own autistic world Saturday when her mother, Dr. Karen McCarron, decided she wanted to “end her pain and Katie’s pain,” according to a Tazewell County Court record obtained by the Journal Star on Wednesday.An affidavit of probable cause said McCarron admitted to her husband, Paul McCarron, a Caterpillar engineer who had arrived home from business in North Carolina hours after the 911 call, that she killed Katherine.
I did not know Katherine McCarron, but do know that she had briefly been a student at the school my own daughter attends. I find myself at a loss for words, so I offer those of another. The following is from the The Brothers Karamazov, book 5, chapter 4. Ivan is speaking to Aloyosha.
It was in the darkest days of serfdom at the beginning of the century, and long live the Liberator of the People! There was in those days a general of aristocratic connections, the owner of great estates, one of those men- somewhat exceptional, I believe, even then- who, retiring from the service into a life of leisure, are convinced that they’ve earned absolute power over the lives of their subjects. There were such men then. So our general, settled on his property of two thousand souls, lives in pomp, and domineers over his poor neighbours as though they were dependents and buffoons. He has kennels of hundreds of hounds and nearly a hundred dog-boys- all mounted, and in uniform. One day a serf-boy, a little child of eight, threw a stone in play and hurt the paw of the general’s favourite hound.
‘Why is my favourite dog lame?’ He is told that the boy threw a stone that hurt the dog’s paw. ‘So you did it.’ The general looked the child up and down. ‘Take him.’ He was taken- taken from his mother and kept shut up all night. Early that morning the general comes out on horseback, with the hounds, his dependents, dog-boys, and huntsmen, all mounted around him in full hunting parade. The servants are summoned for their edification, and in front of them all stands the mother of the child. The child is brought from the lock-up. It’s a gloomy, cold, foggy, autumn day, a capital day for hunting. The general orders the child to be undressed; the child is stripped naked. He shivers, numb with terror, not daring to cry…. ‘Make him run,’ commands the general. ‘Run! run!’ shout the dog-boys. The boy runs…. ‘At him!’ yells the general, and he sets the whole pack of hounds on the child. The hounds catch him, and tear him to pieces before his mother’s eyes!… I believe the general was afterwards declared incapable of administering his estates. Well- what did he deserve? To be shot? To be shot for the satisfaction of our moral feelings? Speak, Alyosha!
“To be shot,” murmured Alyosha, lifting his eyes to Ivan with a pale, twisted smile.
…
Ivan for a minute was silent, his face became all at once very sad.
“Listen! I took the case of children only to make my case clearer. Of the other tears of humanity with which the earth is soaked from its crust to its centre, I will say nothing. I have narrowed my subject on purpose. I am a bug, and I recognise in all humility that I cannot understand why the world is arranged as it is. Men are themselves to blame, I suppose; they were given paradise, they wanted freedom, and stole fire from heaven, though they knew they would become unhappy, so there is no need to pity them. With my pitiful, earthly, Euclidian understanding, all I know is that there is suffering and that there are none guilty; that cause follows effect, simply and directly; that everything flows and finds its level- but that’s only Euclidian nonsense, I know that, and I can’t consent to live by it! What comfort is it to me that there are none guilty and that cause follows effect simply and directly, and that I know it?- I must have justice, or I will destroy myself. And not justice in some remote infinite time and space, but here on earth, and that I could see myself. I have believed in it. I want to see it, and if I am dead by then, let me rise again, for if it all happens without me, it will be too unfair. Surely I haven’t suffered simply that I, my crimes and my sufferings, may manure the soil of the future harmony for somebody else. I want to see with my own eyes the hind lie down with the lion and the victim rise up and embrace his murderer. I want to be there when everyone suddenly understands what it has all been for. All the religions of the world are built on this longing, and I am a believer.
But then there are the children, and what am I to do about them? That’s a question I can’t answer. For the hundredth time I repeat, there are numbers of questions, but I’ve only taken the children, because in their case what I mean is so unanswerably clear. Listen! If all must suffer to pay for the eternal harmony, what have children to do with it, tell me, please? It’s beyond all comprehension why they should suffer, and why they should pay for the harmony. Why should they, too, furnish material to enrich the soil for the harmony of the future? I understand solidarity in sin among men. I understand solidarity in retribution, too; but there can be no such solidarity with children. And if it is really true that they must share responsibility for all their fathers’ crimes, such a truth is not of this world and is beyond my comprehension. Some jester will say, perhaps, that the child would have grown up and have sinned, but you see he didn’t grow up, he was torn to pieces by the dogs, at eight years old. Oh, Alyosha, I am not blaspheming! I understand, of course, what an upheaval of the universe it will be when everything in heaven and earth blends in one hymn of praise and everything that lives and has lived cries aloud: ‘Thou art just, O Lord, for Thy ways are revealed.’ When the mother embraces the fiend who threw her child to the dogs, and all three cry aloud with tears, ‘Thou art just, O Lord!’ then, of course, the crown of knowledge will be reached and all will be made clear. But what pulls me up here is that I can’t accept that harmony. And while I am on earth, I make haste to take my own measures. You see, Alyosha, perhaps it really may happen that if I live to that moment, or rise again to see it, I, too, perhaps, may cry aloud with the rest, looking at the mother embracing the child’s torturer, ‘Thou art just, O Lord!’ but I don’t want to cry aloud then. While there is still time, I hasten to protect myself, and so I renounce the higher harmony altogether. It’s not worth the tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on the breast with its little fist and prayed in its stinking outhouse, with its unexpiated tears to ‘dear, kind God’! It’s not worth it, because those tears are unatoned for. They must be atoned for, or there can be no harmony. But how? How are you going to atone for them? Is it possible? By their being avenged? But what do I care for avenging them? What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price. I don’t want the mother to embrace the oppressor who threw her son to the dogs! She dare not forgive him! Let her forgive him for herself, if she will, let her forgive the torturer for the immeasurable suffering of her mother’s heart. But the sufferings of her tortured child she has no right to forgive; she dare not forgive the torturer, even if the child were to forgive him! And if that is so, if they dare not forgive, what becomes of harmony? Is there in the whole world a being who would have the right to forgive and could forgive? I don’t want harmony. From love for humanity I don’t want it. I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong. Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony; it’s beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing. It’s not God that I don’t accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return him the ticket.”
Posted on May 17th, 2006 by pwyll
Filed under: General
Entries RSS
A working knowledge of how serfdom operates is a good thing to have. Isabel Allende also writes eloquently of its evils.
Dr. Karen McCarron should be stripped naked, chased through the woods by feral dogs, then caught by dem hounds and shredded into slaw.
Editor’s note. I deleted an abusive comment. I almost allowed it when I thought it was directed to me. Then it occurred to me that perhaps it was directed to the first commentor, above. I don’t want that kind of stuff on my blog.
If you have not walked in the shoes, your judgement is worthless.
Said abusive commentator should note that, in the United States, what Dr. Karen McCarron did to her daughter Katherine falls within the definition of premeditated murder — the original news story simply calls it murder).
If an abusive comment toward me is in order, redraft it, get it by the editor, and I’ll be happy to stand as a defender of individuals with autism.
I also defend black humor when it is called for.
dk,
Please elaborate. What does it mean to “walk in the shoes”?
Your claim goes against all common sense. Must one have committed a murder to sit on a jury? Must a physician have had cancer to diagnose it?
What makes you think you have walked in my shoes? By your own standard I should dismiss your opinion as worthless. But I would prefer to understand what it is you are saying.
DK, my respected colleague, I have walked in those shoes.
I spent 2 (of 5) years in the Maryland Attorney General’s office as attorney for a psychiatric system that handled these cases. I also spent 9 years earning my Ph.D. doing public policy research on individuals with developmental disabilities. And I broke my own psychological health in the process.
I get a seat at the discussion table.
“Dr. Karen McCarron should be stripped naked, chased through the woods by feral dogs, then caught by dem hounds and shredded into slaw.”
Oh, but this comment isn’t “abusive”? Not hateful enough for you to delete, pwyll?
Sanctimonious hypocrite.
Oh, and Paco Malo, get some help. Your bloodlust is PATHOLOGIC.
How’s that for a little “black humor”?
Or is this post too “abusive” for this kind and well-meaning little blog?
Chris,
I took the comment you seem worked up about as hyperbole, and as an allusion to the Dostoyevski I quoted. I am content to leave Dr. McCarron’s fate to the state of Illinois, and Paco Malo is entitled to his opinion.
The abuse I refuse to permit is one commentor directly insulting another. You come here to call me a hypocrite and to make a psychiatric diagnosis of someone you have not met. Basically, you come to my blog to tell others to shut up.
Do you have anything to contribute other than a chip on your shoulder?
[Editor's note: I am going to reply in situ. My comments in bold. ]
Ah, I see. Comments you agree with, at least in spirit, are merely hyperbolic allusions, no matter how offensive. Got it. Hey, it’s your blog, right? But you should realize that this policy, at least to some readers, might appear hypocritical.
It is very kind of you to leave the doctor’s fate to the state of Illinois, but really, pwyll, what choice in the matter do you have? And if that was your intention all along, why not just wait until the trial before offering your commentary? You admitted you do not really even know the people involved, let alone the full circumstances surrounding the case, other than from what I’m sure was a very thorough Google search.
[The full circumstances surrounding the murder of a child are no doubt interesting, especially to the police and district attorney's office. I rather doubt that knowing them would make me any more sympathetic.]
As for Paco Malo, no psychiatric diagnosis was made. Re-read my post. Was calling his bloodlust “pathologic” hyperbole, black humor, or abusive insults? Well, since you diasgree with it, then I guess here, on this blog at least, it is abusive. I stand guilty.
[I expressed a policy against personal invective, and then allowed your post to stand. Evidently I did not consider the second post abusive, nor the current one.]
As for chips on shoulders, might your original post, uninformed and self-serving as it was, not qualify? These real people and awful real events, but not known by you, shamefully reduced to mere symbols of modern (liberal? I’m guessing your politics lean strongly to the right. Am I wrong?) depravity.
[In my post I expressed sadness, and quoted Dostoyevski. In what way was it self serving?]
Human tragedy as political rhetoric. Very nice.
[I invite the reader to consider what I actually posted. It is completely apolitical. It is a theological meditation on the inability of even God to right injustices against children.]
Which brings me to what I might have to contribute to all this. Unlike you, all of you, I actually KNOW AND CARE ABOUT the persons involved. And this revolting site, and the stupid pontificating comments on it, disgust me.
Is that insulting? Or perhaps am I too involved in the events to appreciate your wisdom?
[I have no idea what, if any, involvement you have in those events. But I take no insult at your remarks. I don't know you, and your opinions mean nothing to me.]
You’ll forgive me if I don’t stick around to read the answer.
[Of course. I imaginge quite a few blogs have commented on this case. You no doubt have a busy schedule.]
Since Chris has apparently bailed on the discussion, his statement “…. Human tragedy as political rhetoric. Very nice. ….” will merely be denied strongly.
Yes, these are real people, just like ones we know and care for deeply. And bye the bye, the McCarron story is far more newsworthy than the Peterson matter that got enormous attention last year.
As for the “very nice” remark: Chris, sarcasm is the weapon of the weak.
It’s a shame you didn’t stick around.
hi, interesting blog…. came by way of Steve Huff’s.. are you the same pwyII
of the Ledge??? there couldn’t possibly be two!! ; )
Glad you like it, renee`. I don’t anything about the Ledge. I’m the other pwyll.
Paco- Violence would not solve the problem. Clearly, this woman needs help.
I have actually met her- one would have never thought it possible that she would have hurt one of her children that she loved so much.