Patrick,
Re your comments below:
> Jim, with all due respect: evil? What does that
mean?
> Are foxes "evil" for stealing chichens?
Foxes are not capable of making moral judgments. People
are.
As for the definition of evil, I would have thought that was
self- evident, but since you're apparently hazy on the
concept, one who is evil is one who continually, willfully,
and deliberately chooses to act immorally.
Murdering people, just in case it's not clear, is an immoral
act.
> Ripley is not
> able to control himself when he becomes enraged.
His
> first 3 murders are all rage killings. After a
while
> he gets to enjoy murder. It's a challenge for
him.
Rage is not the same as an inability to control oneself. It's
failing to exert control, not an inability to exert control.
And it's not a legal defense against a criminal homicide. You
MIGHT, I say MIGHT, be able to argue that a homicide
committed in an act of rage was manslaughter, but not that it
was insanity.
And if he's committing his subsequent murders primarily
because he enjoys it, that's a textbook example of deliberate
evil.
> You mention that insanity is a legal concept. Under
the
> legal definition, the lawyer that Ripley can
afford
> can certainly make an insanity argument for him if
he
> ever gets caught, which, of course, he never will
be
> now. I doubt that that's the tact that lawyer
would
> take, however. He'd argue innocent and make
the
> prosecution prove it's case which he would riddle
with
> holes.
Whether or not a prosecutor could prove he's a murderer or
not doesn't make him any less a murderer.
We KNOW he's a murder. We're "eyewitnesses," so to speak.
Highsmith lets us "see" the murders "on-stage," so we know,
without question, that Ripley's a murderer. Whether or not a
prosecutor could prove it, given the chance, is irrelevant.
We already know the objective truth.
Your original assertion wasn't that he could get away with it
even if he was brought to trial. It was that he was insane.
And, based on the evidence of the books, that's just not what
he is. He knows what he's doing and he knows the nature and
gravity of his actions. Moreover, he's not in some kind of
fugue state where he's not cognizant of his actions at the
time he commits them and is therefore powerless to resist the
impulse that causes him to kill. And if he's not either of
those, he's not insane. He may not be normal, but he's not
insane.
He's just a guy who likes to murder people.
Which means he's evil.
JIM DOHERTY
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06 Apr 2007 EDT