Originally posted by Sonya610
As far as people (above) calling hima monster, I do not think that is fair. There is no evidence that this guy tortured his kids daily, or had a slew
of victims.
He could be a nice decent person that went nuts. It happens and that does not make the people monsters. Like those women that go nuts and kill their
kids, when they get on anti-psychotic drugs and realize what they have done they can't live with themselves. They are sick they are not simply
monstrous people.
Let me apologize in advance for quoting almost your entire response, but I really need it in order to make one point qualify to the original statement
in this case.
I rarely do this, but I whole-heartedly disagree with your assessment and mind-set. Were you to try to be convincing at least to ME what it is you're
saying, you would have me agree that a SINGLE monstrous act, is not tantamount to a person being a monster, irrespective of their mental stability.
This is one thing you could never convince me of, and I highly doubt much anyone else of either.
A person CAN be sick, AND be a monster, whether they have committed the act on family or not, and whether they have performed it multiple times or
not.
A dog goes berzerk, mutilates and kills a child and we euthanize them, why? Because we know full well the possibility of repeat is extremely high. OF
COURSE, the act may NEVER happen again during the dogs life. Does that mean that the singular monstrous act and the MORE disturbing likelihood of
repeat did not justify the euthanizing of the dog? I would say it most certainly does.
AB1
[edit on 3-8-2008 by alphabetaone]