Quote:
Originally Posted by Impetuous1
This really bothers me. Yes, I agree that most people would not consider him sane since he did something most sane people would never think of doing. However, I guess you then have to ask what is sane? I may be wrong, but don't most people have a few classifiable psychological conditions that are considered minor? Also, how do you know he has an unfortunate past? Then, I also have to ask; if someone has an unfortunate past, does that then give them a free pass to commit atrocities? I don't think so. He knew right from wrong. He went 26 years without commiting any serious crimes. He did not stand out. IMO that means that he should be able to take responsibility for his own actions. I'll have to say I'm in the camp that thinks he deserves to be punished. I think he deserves death.
|
What is sane? Well I am using insane in a general sense to mean that he has extreemly serious antisocial personality disorder, narcissism, OCD, dissasociative disorder...etc.; someone who beacause of their disorder(s) is a danger to themselves or people around them and who require treatment from professionals.
Does someone have a free pass to kill if they have had biological or environmental factors that caused them to have disoders? That has to be a case by case basis. Luckely, we have a case by case judicial system, so it's fair to judge them as such. I am not suggesting to give this man a free pass. I am only suggesting that killing him is wrong. Only the sith deal in absolutes.
It's alright to think he should be punished without wanting to KILL him, just so you know.