Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
I look at it from the victims’ viewpoint - if something evil is done to you, you don’t care if it was done out of enjoyment (evil person) or for what they believe are good reasons (good(?) person); to the victim, they are both equally as bad.
|
Yes, there may well be different viewpoints from the various people in the scenario.
I was speaking as an observer, but the victim is likely to hold a viewpoint that is tainted by anger, fear or resentment etc.
This is why decisions (on this Earth) in civilised countries take into account victim statements, but the final decision as to whether someone had diminished responsibility or was simply being evil and what action should be taken rests with people independent of the situation.
The Yorkshire Ripper was deemed by experts to have killed due to diminished responsibility and, therefore, by default, was not evil, but i'm sure that the victims and their families wouldn't have cared about this (it wouldn't be reasonable to expect them to be impartial and reasonable in the circumstances) and they would have wanted him to be severely punished.
The irony is that had he been deemed to have done something out of badness, there would have been more of a chance that he wouldn't have spent his last years locked up.