Turcotte

Back in the days when I sat behind a lawyer’s desk, a woman came to see me wanting a divorce. I don’t remember her name; let’s just call her “Mrs. Callous.” My husband is in the hospital, she told me, in the psychiatric ward. Can he accept service, I wondered out loud. Oh sure, she said, he’s depressed, but he’s not “out of it.” Ok.

Now Turcotte is in the news again, Guy Turcotte. You know the story if you live in Quebec. You probably know the story if you live elsewhere in Canada and you read out of province news. Anywhere else, I doubt it. So here’s a recap:

The man is a cardiologist, not practicing at the moment. His ex-wife is an EMO. They had two kids, and a few years ago, the wife decided that having an affair with their personal trainer (who was a friend to both of them) was a good idea. Dr. T had a different opinion. Traumatized by what was going on in his life, he got hit by a serious bout of depression, and, in what is alleged to have been a psychotic (though I have not yet seen the word actually used) episode, he murdered his two very young children, rather brutally. He then drank a bottle of windshield wiper fluid, in an apparent attempt to commit suicide (though it’s been pointed out that being a doctor and all, he ought to have known about better and more reliable methods).

That’s the story. He was tried and found not criminally responsible for his actions. (They don’t use “insanity” here). There was an uproar. People are outraged. There is an appeal pending.

I’m not sure why people are so upset by the verdict. I guess there’s a feeling that this guy is responsible, and should be held accountable. I was not at the trial. I did not hear the evidence. But I read the same news reports as everyone else. From what I understand, they couldn’t possibly convict. He had no history of violence. He had no history of “abnormal” behaviour. The psychiatric evidence of his having “snapped,” (as the papers now put it) was fairly strong. The jury, as far as I can tell, made the right decision.

We like to think that there is a one-to-one correspondence between criminal responsibility and moral responsibility. Anyone with any familiarity with how the justice system really works is disabused of that notion fairly quickly, but from a distance the system seems to work well enough, and the correlation seems intact. Throw a bit of “insanity” into the mix, though, and the system breaks down.

And here is where people are confused. “Not criminally responsible” does not mean that whatever the guy did is ok. Killed his kids? Sure. Ok. No problem.

Not so.

Now here is Dr. Turcotte (never referred to as “Dr” in the press, note), subject to a hearing to determine whether he can be released from the institute in which he has been incarcerated since his trial. It’s very difficult to tell from the press reports what is really going on. But the sense that one gets is that he is taking back control of his life, he is moving on, he feels that he is emotionally much healthier than he was a few years ago. He feels “less shame, less guilt, and has more self-esteem.” Therapy “has worked wonders” says the article in Friday’s Gazette. He is no longer depressed, it says, nor on medication.

Well, that’s wonderful news, isn’t it? For him. Sure. And the crown attorney, who wants to keep him where he is, is correctly pointing out, echoing psychiatrist Pierre Rochette, that there is a “missing link” here, a piece of the story that’s not being addressed. “We don’t know why he was able to snap,” she says, “how do we know what danger he represents to society now?” True enough, and hopefully enough to keep him locked up. But there’s more.

Have they addressed the question of how Turcotte can look at himself in the mirror every day? How much ownership has he taken of the destruction that he’s caused, how much responsibility has he expressed. He’s ready to go on and face life’s challenges as a healed man? Very nice. What about the rest of us? What about his ex-wife, the mother of the children he murdered, who is left to deal with a trauma none of us can imagine. What about the family’s inner and outer circle, everyone who’s been touched by the tragedy, whose lives have been altered in ways that life can never prepare you for? The good doctor asserts that he was sick and now he’s better and everything’s ok? So that takes care of everything. “Not criminally responsible” means what? That he gets “better” and walks away? If so, then no wonder people are outraged.

Criminally responsible? No. Morally responsible? Yes. Let’s hope that the verdict is upheld and that Turcotte stays where he is, at least until the guy can show a realistically human attitude to his own malfeasance, and until those treating him have a better understanding of what happened. May never happen? You kill your kids, you take your chances…

So Mrs. Callous came back to sign her papers. By the way, she said, he’s out of the hospital. She gave me an address. What will happen, I asked, thinking about the process server who had to hand the guy a divorce petition, when he gets served? Oh, she said, with a tone of utter contempt, it’ll probably send him right back to the hospital. I could not, at the time, understand her utter callousness. I get it now. And she got her divorce. And I don’t know what happened to him.

The "Expert" Speaks...

The thing about bad writing is this: as the T-shirt says, good grammar costs nothing. So does good syntax, correct word usage, and correct punctuation. I will leave for another day a discussion about whether rules are still relevant. Let us assume, for the purpose of discussion, that they are. So here are the VSL Poltroon’s rules for writing:

• Don’t say “amount” when you mean number. I can’t count the number of times I’ve read “the amount of people.”
• Don’t say “less” when you mean “fewer.” I saw a Starbucks napkin that read: “more trees, less napkins.”
• Don’t use “disinterested” when you mean “uninterested.” I know it sounds fancier, but it’s wrong.
• Don’t use “insure” when you mean “ensure.” Don’t use “assure” either. Unless there is insurance involved, use an “e.”
• “Candelabra” is plural. The singular is “candelabrum.”
• “It begs the question” does not mean “it raises the question.” If you don’t understand the expression, don’t use it.
• Don’t use “what’s more.” It’s dumb. Say “moreover.”
• Never never never never never never never use “to be sure.” Use “certainly” or “indeed.” Use anything else. DO NOT use “to be sure.”
• Don’t say “leverage” when you mean “use.”
• Never use “utilize” unless you are a scientist. It is an exact synonym for “use,” so save the earth the two syllables.
• Don’t use “is able to;” just say “can.”
• Try very hard to avoid claptrap clichés like “to say the least,” “to name a few,” “says it all,” “not to mention.”
• “However” should always begin a sentence.
• “Which” should never begin a sentence, unless it’s a question.
• Do not put a comma after “is” –“the problem is, I have no friends." Just use “that.” The problem is that I have no friends.
• Speaking of which, restore “that” to its rightful place. Consider: “I saw the people walking very quickly around the room like they’d all had too much of a very intoxicating substance mixed with some mind-debilitating drug purchased from some faraway foreign shady dealers were happy.” Now put a “that” after “saw” and see what happens.
• Don’t write long stupid sentences like that last one, even with a “that.”
• Don’t split infinitives. I know the rule is silly. I know that it’s arcane. I know that it’s not even a “rule.” I don’t give a flying f**k about that. Just don’t do it. Star Trek be damned.
• Don’t use “they” if the gender of the subject is unambiguous. “The patient must inform the nurse if they are pregnant.”
• I know that otherwise it’s difficult to avoid the use of “they” in the singular. The world today does not tolerate “he” as a universal pronoun. Too bad. Still, no excuse when you are referring to an inanimate subject. “The company must file their annual report.” Hello? (Still, don’t use “she” as a universal pronoun. If “he” doesn’t work, neither does “she.”)
• Do not drop the subject of the sentence, like I just did. In fact, I dropped the predicate too. “No excuse” should be “there is no excuse.” Unless you are me. Then you can do what you want.
• Do not use sentence fragments, like “unless you are me.”
• Unless you are me.
• Don’t use qualifiers that don’t work: “almost infinite,” “very unique.”
• Remember that “almost taller” means shorter.
• Don’t qualify the wrong word. “We offer limitless possibilities.” I wonder how many limitless possibilities they offer.
• Don’t use “infinite” when you mean many. “There are infinite possibilities.” No there are not.
• Never use “deeply” for any reason whatsoever. “He loved her very deeply.” Yuck. And he probably didn’t even.
• Never end a sentence with “even.”
• Don’t say “shocked” when you mean “surprised.” Don’t say “devastated” when you mean “disappointed.” Don’t use “slammed” when you mean “criticized.”
• Never use “that said.” Never use “going forward.”
• Don’t use “if” if you mean “whether.” “The test indicates if you are pregnant.” Whether.
• Don’t put two time-frame expressions in the same sentence. “They released their second LP two years later in 1965. “ I can do the math, both ways.
• Don’t use exclamation points ever, unless it’s within a quote.
• It’s “try to,” not “try and.” UK writers seem to think “try and” is ok. I’ve seen it across the board, from Ian Fleming to J. K. Rowling.
• “All of a sudden” can be “suddenly,” and you haven’t lost anything except three unnecessary words.
• The present tense of “lie,” as in to recline, is “lie,” not “lay.” “We were laying in bed” means something entirely different. Be careful. I bet even Bob Dylan didn’t know that he was getting it wrong (nor did he care, I’m sure).
• Don’t put “and” after a semi-colon. It may be technically correct, but it’s definitely stupid.
• The reason is “that,” not “because.” I ate because I was hungry. The reason I ate was that I was hungry.
• Don’t follow “including” with another participle.
• When you write a negative statement followed by a reason, it’s not clear whether the statement is really negative. “We didn’t implement the system because of security concerns.” Well, then, why did you implement it?
• Don’t use expressions that are absolutely completely totally meaningless, like “accused killer.”
• “You can buy margarine the colour of a sunset in Ireland.” Is the sunset in Ireland? Or is that where you can buy it?
• Why would anybody want to buy sunset coloured margarine?
• Watch out for pleonasms: “ATM machine,” “NDP Party.” Look it up.
• Watch your pronouns: “The lawyer stopped representing his client when he was deported.”

So you can learn these rules, then feel free to break them to achieve you own personal style (except for the rule about “to be sure;” no exceptions will be tolerated).

Or you could forget about them, and get a job writing for the Montreal Gazette…