Jared Lee Loughner and 6 other mass shooters: How the cases were resolved

Jared Lee Loughner was found competent Tuesday to stand trial and pleaded guilty to 19 counts, including murder and attempted murder, for the January 2011 shooting in Tucson in which six people were killed and 13 wounded – including then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) of Arizona – at a Giffords event at a supermarket.

Mark Kelly, Ms. Giffords’s husband, said Tuesday that he and his wife support the plea. “The pain and loss caused by the events of Jan. 8, 2011, are incalculable,” Mr. Kelly wrote. “Avoiding a trial will allow us – and we hope the whole Southern Arizona community – to continue with our recovery and move forward with our lives.”

Accepting a guilty plea in exchange for a life sentence is not unusual in a case like this – although, when it comes to mass shootings in the US, perhaps the most anomalous aspect of the case is that Loughner was captured alive. In instances where the perpetrator was not killed during the rampage, here’s how other cases of mass shootings have been resolved:

1. California State University, Fullerton, shooting

Maggie Keane/Reuters
Jared Loughner (c) is shown in a courtroom sketch sitting with his attorney Judy Clark (l) during his hearing in federal court in Tucson, Ariz., on Aug. 7, 2012. Loughner pleaded guilty to killing six people and wounding 13 others, including then-U.S. congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, in an Arizona shooting rampage last year, and will be spared the death penalty in exchange.

On July 12, 1976, Edward Charles Allaway shot and killed seven people and wounded two more in the university library. He worked as a janitor there.

Mr. Allaway faced trial, where he was found guilty of murder. But a judge determined him not guilty by reason of insanity, and he was committed to a mental institution.

In 2001, his doctors said that his paranoid schizophrenia was in remission, and recommended his release, but a judge ruled that he still posed a danger to society and should not be released.

1 of 6

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.