>Nathan, the term "evil" assumes metaphysics
which
cannot be established empirically. People who bandy about the
word "evil" tend to be a little on the mental edge,
themselves, in my experience. Because someone performs an act
that is not of benefit to you or your extended group does not
make them "evil," however inconvenient their actions may have
proved to you. If they perform these acts based on twisted
logic, though, they are very likely insane. <
Not really. You can apply the same logic to the term insane.
Just because someone does something you don't like and comes
to the decision to do it through a process you don't
understand doesn't make them insane. Who gets to say whose
logic is twisted? You? Are you the official arbiter of
empirical sanity?
> When you say "Prisons are full of entirely sane
people," how do
you know this? Do you vist prisions frequently?<
No, but I was, for a while, paid to attend criminal court at
least twice a week. I've sat through trials for everything:
Murder, rape, child molestation, drug dealing, armed robbery,
you name it I've seen it prosecuted. Didn't see a whole lot
of crazy. A lot of selfish, a lot of stupid, a lot of mean,
but very little crazy. I once sat through the trial of a man
who set his children on fire because his new girlfriend
didn't want them around. He wanted his new girlfriend more
than he wanted his kids, so he lit a match while they slept
and, viola!, no more kids.That's not insane.That's just
selfish. He knew what he was doing was wrong, but he did it
anyway.
And most people who are in prison are in for mundane
things like selling dope or stealing. It's generally
economically motivated crime. Hard to call them crazy. For
every serial killer there are probably 500 murderers who
killed for entirely mundane reasons. The horrible truth about
most crime is that it's boring.
>When do you decide a person who's committed murder is
"perfectly
sane?" Do you think Ilene Wournos was "perfectly sane." If
you do, see the Biography Channel's Notorious episode about
her with the actual footage of her trial. What about Edward
Kemper who murdered co-eds in San Francisco before he killed
his mother, set her head on the mantle piece and put her
larynx down the garbage disposal? Or Alan Blackthorn who had
his ex-wife and the mother of his two daughters murdered
while she cared for her infant quintuplets, leaving her
butchered corpse for his daughter to discover? The child, of
course, knew immediately who'd done it! When do you think
someone's insane? How bad does it have to get?<
These people are not representative of most killers. You
can't draw any conclusions by looking at the sensational
crimes that end up making the true crime shows, and books.
They don't tell you anything about the reality of crime and
punishment. You want that, go sit through arraignments,
probation revocation hearings and plea agreements. You'll see
the sort of people who end up in the system. They're not
monsters, even most of the killers. And, to bring it back
around to crime fiction, here's why I think Ripley isn't
crazy: He goes to great lengths to get away with his crimes.
He's an exceptionally rational human being. He sees what he
wants and he goes for it, with no regard for the people who
are in his way. He does have plenty of regard, however, for
the potential consequences his actions could have for him. He
can reason: He can say to himself, "I killed X, now I must do
Y to avoid detection." Anyone who can understand the
potential consequences of their actions isn't insane.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 07 Apr 2007 EDT