Last night I saw an episode of "Born To Kill ?", featuring Fred
and Rosemary West. A couple that have given me the creeps
for a long time

http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/Crime/programm
e_3031.php

Now, both Fred and Rosemary came from abusive backgrounds
and Fred suffered head injuries in a couple of accidents. It was
put forward that they could not have escaped their social and
genetic "pre-destiny" to be abusive and monstrous themselves

Given the gross and prolonged nature of their offending, which
apparently gave them great delight, you would intuitively call
them evil. But considering their backgrounds, how would you
then define "evil" ?

We know that behaviour has a physical and chemical basis. For
example schizophrenia. If a pair such as the West's are not wholly
responsible for their actions, can they be considered truly evil ?

Not that I'm an apologist for the Wests. A pity they were not
stopped at their first (quite serious) offence

I would regard criminal pyscho/sociopaths differently from those
who knowingly get wasted and drive or commit crimes

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist