If he would have gotten help for his sickness none of those people would have died....why do people think he is evil?? These people obv know nothing about psychology....I dont believe that people can be evil. I think being sick is seen as being evil by people who dont know any better. People need to see the real picture which was he was a sick man that needed help....
shareBundy was the epitome of evil. If he were truly crazy how could he have escaped detection for so long? How could he have escaped from custody twice? How could he have stayed on the lam for months? He could control his impulses, he simply chose not to. If it was out of his control how is it he was never compelled to kidnap/rape/murder anyone in the presence of a uniformed police officer? The truly crazy ones are easy to catch.
Was he sick? No more so than a run-of-the-mill criminal. He knew what he was doing was wrong (hence the efforts to conceal his identity) and the consequences would be severe. He decided that the thrill outweighed the risk. His needs, wants, and desires trumped all.
His sexual proclivities were aberrant to be sure, but that doesn't excuse or mitigate kidnapping/rape/murder. Most people have sexual fantasies, but for most, that's as far as it goes. People should be judged by their actions. By that standard, Bundy was evil.
Crazy does not equal stupid. Bundy was either sociopathic or psychopathic which means he lacked empathy. Hence the reason of him not caring about controlling his impulses; he saw no reason to because he didn't care if others suffered.
share[deleted]
You're being very naieve. Objectively Bundy put a great deal of planning into his crimes. These were no compulsive crimes but crimes with a great deal of pre-meditation. The man had a degree in psychology and claimed to know he was sick yet he never sought treatment instead he used it as an excuse for why he shouldn't be killed.
He was a sick, sick individual with very twisted sexual perversions which he put a great deal of effort into satiating. He was not a maniac and if he was truly sick he knew about it and made no effort to get treated. He used his knowledge of psychology to aid in his defense and crimes.
He really was a a classic example of someone who was very aware he was doing wrong but continued to do so at every opportunity. He comes as close to someone deserving the death penalty as you're going to get.
He was a sociopath. Technically that is a mental illness, but that is debatable since there is no treatment. I know there are diseases that can't be cured, but the symptoms can be treated. There is no treatment for a sociopath, all you can do is lock them up for life to prevent them hurting other people (they don't hurt themselves).
Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
And I'd say you have ONLY an understanding of psychology, and little else about the world we live in. I have to assume you have never been attacked, threatened or abused by anyone, and realised that some people are beyond any help.
To my mind, if someone kills and rapes and tortures innocent victims like Ted Bundy did, they need to be stopped, for good, by those who can. Like paedophiles, such behaviour cancels out any sympathy. They are acting in the most abhorrent way possible. Whether the actions of a madman with no control or genius with full knowledge of his actions, multiple murderers take lives and deserve to have theirs taken in return. Anyone with the capacity to inflict the suffering this man did is not someone deserving help, it is someone deserving death.
It's unlucky for someone to be born that way, unluckier still to be on the recieving end of it. The fact that the sane world cannot tolerate such sociopaths is unfortunate for them, but common sense to us.
Look at the massacres in Darfur, where babies are hacked from the womb by machetes and thrown onto fires in front of their raped and screaming mothers. Tell me then that there is no evil, and that the perpetrators just need help.
Evil is rare, but it does exist, and those who commit such acts deserve nothing more than a bullet.
I agree with most of your post, but disagree strongly with your assertion that evil is rare. Evil has a spectrum, many people are on the low end of the spectrum, and few people are on the high end. When you lie, when you gossip, when you steal or fornicate those are evil acts. The standard is God's perfect holiness and righteousness. Violating God's law is evil.
Blessed is he who has not seen and yet has faith.
Here, you need to read this - http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/parade_071402.html
Sickness is having the impulse to do what he did. But acting on that impulse is evil... plain and simple.
share
Sickness is a condition.
Evil is a behavior.
Evil is always a matter of choice. Evil is not thought; it is conduct. And that conduct is always volitional.
And just as evil is always a choice, sickness is always the absence of choice. Sickness happens. Evil is inflicted.
Until we perceive the difference clearly, we will continue to give aid and comfort to our most pernicious enemies. We, as a society, decide whether something is sick or evil. Either decision confers an obligation upon us. Sickness should be treated. Evil must be fought.
If a person has desires or fantasies about sexually exploiting children, that individual may be sick. (Indeed, if such desires are disturbing, as opposed to gratifying, to the individual, there may even be a "cure.") But if the individual chooses to act upon those feelings, that conduct is evil. People are not what they think; they are what they do.
He was sick in the way that he was unable to feel sympathy for other people and was unable to accept that he just can't go and do wrong things.
But he also didn't regret the things he did. He indeed felt funny watch ppl get mad on him.
I doubt that he could be helped, because he didn't wanna be helped. He liked the way he was and didn't wanna change.