On September 24, 1999, Kip pleaded guilty to crimes associated with the Springfield shooting.

Oregon teen pleads guilty to shooting spree:
Could get 25 years to life for killing parents, classmates

September 24, 1999
Web posted at CNN at: 6:48 p.m. EDT (2248 GMT)

EUGENE, Oregon (CNN) -- An Oregon teen-ager dropped his insanity defense and pleaded guilty Friday to murder and attempted murder for the shooting spree last year that left his parents and two fellow students dead, and 25 students injured.

Kip Kinkel, 17, faces from 25 years to more than 200 years in prison under the terms of the plea agreement, Lane County District Attorney Doug Harcleroad said. A sentencing date will be set later.

"Sounds like there's enough years -- he'll probably die in prison," said Tony Case, a student who was shot in the back and leg. "What more could we ask for?"

The plea agreement came just three days before Kinkel was to be tried on four counts of aggravated murder. Late Thursday, attorneys for the teen approached Lane County Circuit Judge Jack Mattison with a request for Friday's hearing.

Out of prison at age 42?

Kinkel pleaded guilty to four reduced counts of murder and 26 counts of attempted murder, which included lunging at a detective with a knife. Under Oregon law, Kinkel was not eligible for the death penalty because he was under 18 years of age at the time of the shooting.

The deal calls for sentences of at least 25 years on each count of murder, with those sentences to be served concurrently. Prosecutors are asking the judge to add 7 1/2 years for each count of attempted murder.

If those sentences also are served concurrently, there is the possibility that Kinkel could get out of prison at age 42.

Sister sat in front row

Kinkel opened fire with a rifle in a crowded cafeteria at Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon, on May 21, 1998. He squeezed off 50 rounds, killing Ben Walker, 16, and Mikael Nickolauson, 17, before several other boys tackled him.

Authorities said that the day before, Kinkel had shot and killed his parents, Spanish teachers Bill and Faith Kinkel, and then spent the night planting booby traps around their bodies.

In the packed courtroom Friday, Kinkel sat between two lawyers on edge of chair as the judge went through the 20-page plea agreement. He answered Mattison's questions with a soft "yes" while faint sobs rose from the packed gallery. Kinkel's sister, Kristin, 21, was in the front row, but made no public statement.

"This is the best resolution of the case," said John Walley, whose son was wounded. "I don't need to understand what he was thinking. You can beat your head against that wall and you will go crazy because it was a senseless thing."

'No choice' but to kill

The Oregon shooting was one of a string of deadly U.S. school shootings that continued this year with the attack at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, that left 15 people, including the two gunmen, dead.

When Kinkel was being subdued at the crime scene, he begged the students to shoot him.

The teen-ager told investigators just hours after his arrest that he had "no choice" but to kill after shaming his parents by getting expelled from school."

"I had to be 100 percent," Kinkel told defense psychiatrist Orin Bolstad. "No one is perfect though. Lots of times, life sucked. With my parents, if I didn't do the best, I was an embarrassment to my parents."

How did you become so interested in this topic?

I don't know why it hit me the way it did. In fact, I was surprised by how strongly I felt about it. I followed the news and the reactions of people to the tragedy, and the words and images just would not let me go. The tragedy raised issues with me that I could not resolve. I felt a need to understand my own response to the events, to explore my concern, and to share the thoughts that were gripping me. So, shortly after the tragedy, I set up a web site devoted to this one issue. And I've worked on it relentlessly since then.

Are you a professional counsellor? Where did you get the information you're citing in your essays? Do you have a basis of expertise?

I am not a professional counsellor. The information I cite has been gleaned from decades of living and learning: reading, listening, watching, researching, and so forth. Studies in psychology, philosophy and neurosciences have opened my eyes some. Meetings on ethics, restorative justice, education and child welfare have opened my eyes some more. Scrutiny of legislation, formal reports, and policy documents on child welfare and related justice and social issues, too, has been eye-opening. But I claim no expertise - and indeed I believe consideration of this issue must not be limited to those with credentials. Turning to experts did not prevent this tragedy, and turning to experts will not, by itself, prevent recurrences elsewhere. Professionals have their place, but blind reliance on them to solve the underlying social problems is unacceptable. The solution lies in each of us, and we can't expect the experts to tell us everything we need to do to be more open to positive change.

What hit you hardest about this tragedy?

I was hit hardest by the realization that I could not resolve for myself the issues this tragedy raised. I saw a boy who had evidently done something horribly wrong and who now stood on the threshold of the end of his life. I saw individuals and families torn apart. None of the speculation about why this might have happened was satisfying. But I also realized that this was not an abstract debate, since real lives and futures were hanging in the balance. I was left to ask myself where I draw the line for reconciliation. How toughly am I prepared to judge? What are the ethical dangers of writing off another human being? If we make a monster out of the perpetrator, do we do so at the expense of understanding the things common to all of us that could be at the root of such actions and circumstances?

What did you hope to accomplish by developing a web site on this tragedy?

I listened to the heart-wrenching that went on in the wake of the tragedy - and I understand people can take only so much soul-searching before they feel the need to bring closure to the issue, to come down on one side of the fence or another, to choose an explanation, and to put aside the whole thing so they can get on with their lives. I believe there is great danger in settling for any easy answer: more therapy, stiffer penalties, more gun control, less violence in the media. I believe if we challenge our conclusions and keep the matter before ourselves, both as individuals and collectively, perhaps new answers will emerge - new approaches, new opportunities to address things differently. I don't proclaim those answers, but I do defy complacency when I see it. If we prevent ourselves and one another from closing the book on this and from settling for easy answers, we keep open the door to new ideas.

What can the media do differently to help prevent or address such tragedies?

Blaming the media for child violence is one of the easy solutions that lets people avoid accepting their own responsibilities in the face of such tragedies. Attacking anti-social television programs, video games, web sites and music is pointless if we are prepared to ignore the underlying circumstances that attract children to violence and lead them to act out with violence. Every kid exposed to these media is someone's child, someone's student, someone's friend, someone's neighbor - and if we get too cozy with the idea of blaming the media for violence, we may miss an opportunity to reach out and make a difference at a more local level.

As for the media covering tragedies once they've happened - particularly school shootings - I think it is responsible and valuable. Some fear it glorifies violence and breeds copycats, but you can't pretend a tragedy isn't newsworthy and you don't fool anyone by burying the coverage in under the front page. Once again, blaming the media for copycats is simplistic and lets people avoid owning up to their responsibilities in the lives of those around them. I am very pleased with the coverage I've seen on the school shootings - on CNN and in the Register Guard in particular.

As for what the media - or individual reporters - can do differently: Probably just more of the same. Keep the issues out there. Follow through on some of these themes: malignant peer influences at school, the effects of drugs on children, variants and degrees of child abuse and inappropriate parenting, the legitimacy or otherwise of certain mental illnesses, and the nature and impact of our penal system. Journalism is at the forefront of positive social change in the world today. Keep stirring the pot.

You use tough, angry, in-your-face language and arguments. Why?

I try to convey what I feel. This is a powerful issue. People are passionate about it. Some people's views are firmly fixed. If I want to shake myself and others out of complacency by exploring difficult themes, then I'm probably going to disturb some people. I realize that, and I ask them to consider whether they're angry because they know I'm wrong, or mad because they're not sure any longer if the answers they've been clinging to are as simple as they've wanted to believe they are.

Surely after all that soul-searching, you've come to a conclusion about what is probably the predominant underlying cause of what happened. Is it gun access, or mental illness, or anger mismanagement, or an accident that spiraled madly out of control?

Each of the subpages exploring the various possible reasons for the behavior is qualified by the front page of the site. There, right at the start, I point out that we all have snippets of information about the tragedy - whether we're in Springfield or New York or outside the US altogether. The information is in the public domain, and we piece it together and think we know something about why it happened. What I've done is piece that information together in different and sometimes disturbing ways in an attempt to shake myself and readers out of certain mindsets. In a way, the site is a massive thought experiment; but at the same time it's about a real living human being, no less alive and important than I am. I want to mess around with our stereotypes and keep that one image in front of us, through all the abstract reasoning and contemplating: the image of a living, breathing boy. If we forget him, have we really learned anything from all this?

Your site asks the question "What about Kip?" - but I ask "What about the victims?" Don't you think the victims and their families may be disturbed and hurt by the things they read on your site? Is the talk of leniency and forgiveness being expressed at their expense?

The tragedy has touched everyone, both inside the US and beyond. It's a human tragedy that transcends all boundaries. Without question, the pain of the tragedy is felt most keenly by those who lived through it directly. I think about the families and friends of Ben and Mikael. I think about Kristen and her family. I think about the young fellow, Ryan, who lives today because the gun pointed at his head had an empty chamber. There's no diminishing their suffering. But we do the victims no favors by grasping for easy solutions or turning to blind retribution. That does nothing to make sense of this tragedy or to prevent others. It leaves the underlying problem neglected. The victims deserve better than that.

Are you advocating leniency in sentencing those - particularly children - who commit such crimes?

I concede I have serious problems with the degree to which we've embraced the incarceration approach to crime. This is a 7-year crime, that's a 10-year one, and surely this must be a 15. Our prisons are overcrowded and there's practically a waiting list to get in. And what do they accomplish? I remember watching the movie "Papillon" with Steve McQueen, which portrayed the cruel French penal system of years past. Once this approach to crime was considered proper; but now we consider it cruel and inhumane. There is plenty of evidence that the current system is similarly flawed. The proponents of restorative justice will tell you they firmly believe there is a better way. But what is the alternative, how do we get from here to there, and will such changes advance the cause of justice and public safety?

Surely we can't turn criminals loose on the street - especially murderers?

I know what you're saying. For society to work, we must strike an acceptable balance. It's tempting to think I'm offering political solutions to these problems when I conclude, in some of the essays, that an individual may not be fully responsible for his actions. But it was never my intent in posting this web site to offer easy solutions or easy ways out. Sometimes I am deliberately pushing the envelope so I can see what a certain line of reasoning and conclusion feels like. Does a particular line of reasoning work? Can I live with the implications? I don't claim to have the answers. In fact, it's because I don't have the answers that I've been driven to create this web site. I said from the beginning that I am not here to solve the problems of America. I am trying to re-humanize the alleged perpetrator so the debate about Why remains a debate with human faces instead of flying off into wild abstractions. I am writing to prick the conscience of the individual reading, with my own conscience being the first in need of pricking. I want to reawaken those who think the easiest and safest solution is simply to lock up the problems, after the fact, and throw away the key. My conscience cannot live anymore with such a simplistic solution, and I hope I help others to feel uncomfortable about it, too.

Surely the talk about leniency and restorative justice is academic when it comes to multiple murder, even when kids are the perpetrators. Can a murderer be forgiven and reintegrated, or is murder one of those crimes that demands tough justice? How do you feel about capital punishment?

The fact that it's a multiple murder is precisely the reason I've had such a difficult time with this: surely we can't let killers run loose. The age of the alleged perpetrator is another disturbing factor: surely we can't treat this as just another homicide. The legal system gives us an opportunity to take the easy way out of this: the trial will follow its course, and we may argue and debate, but in the end we can sit back as spectators and say justice was done or was not done, and leave it at that. It's a different picture when you consider that you and I and others, as citizens of countries where murders happen, are not just observers: we are voters who have the power and indeed the responsibility to help shape public opinion and policy and law. Ultimately, the way we deal with such incidents and issues rests in our hands, because that's the awesome nature of democracy.

When I realize that I, just as much as any juror, have ownership of these issues, then the burden weighs down heavily on my shoulders. I am a citizen of a country, but I am also a member of the human race with convictions and beliefs - and I know one day I, like everyone else, will be dead. And I ask myself if I, on my deathbed, could live with having drawn the line of judgment - in my own head - on another human being and determined that he is beyond reconciliation. I ask that about this child. Who knows what forces can drive a young person over the edge! But is there no way back? I can't bear the thought that, in his own heart and soul, he sees no way back, no way out, no hope. I reject capital punishment. I think it is the extreme consequence of the questionable presumption that heavier penalties means better justice. I feel a need to believe that even the one who has killed can find redemption in this life and make a positive contribution to human hope. But I've also lived long enough to reject naive liberalism.

You explore many themes on your site. Perhaps some of them are more exaggerated or mischievous than others. What do you want the web visitor to remember?

Two things:

First, I am concerned about the fate of the young fellow who sits awaiting trial. He's been spoken of in the past tense and abstractly for weeks now, and it's very easy to slip into small talk about the events and what awaits him. But what really haunts me and shakes me out of those abstractions is the thought that this boy sits in a cell right now with a blank wall where his future used to be. I can't hold that thought in front of me for very long without being awestruck by it: fifteen and maybe about to be caged for life. Never lose sight of the fact that this is a human being - and as long as a human being is alive, no matter what he's done, he has hopes and fears and dreams and needs just as real as yours and mine are.

Second, I am concerned about the changes that may follow these school shootings: more counselling, stricter gun control, stricter penalties for kids caught with firearms, tougher sentences, stricter controls on violent television programs and video games, and so forth. Maybe these things will make a positive difference. Maybe treating them as a panacea and leaving the fundamentals unaddressed will make matters worse. The root problem is infinitely more complex than that, and we risk missing yet another wake-up call if we let these latest measures lull us into complacency. The web site challenges the explanations and the solutions, and keeps reminding the viewer of the suspicions he already has about the easy answers. It is only when each of us remains awake and vigilant about these things that we pick up on the individual opportunities we have to make a difference in the lives of other human beings.

If you could say something to the young fellow right now, what would it be?