Faith writes:
All this kind of annoyed me, since to my mind the main thing was whether or not he had killed the child and how the law should deal with him for that crime. All the talk about a good side or his being totally evil just seemed irrelevant to me and something that shouldn't be muddying up the real issues. One juror kept getting hung up on these side issues and bringing him around to the criminal facts was difficult but in the end they succeeded.
Absolutely.
Even Hitler's dog loved Hitler - because Hitler was good to his dog.
"Good and Evil" isn't a static value in people.
People are good in this stituation, and bad in that situation.
The issue, as you said, is if they were good or bad in the criminal facts/scenario that's in question.
I wouldn't say everything else is entirely irrelevant - in certain situations it may provide evidence of credibility for if the actions were "by accident" or "fully intended."
In your particular example - with "ongoing abuse" on such a large scale - I would completely agree that no level of "very nice to everyone else" matters at all.
Something about being annoyed that issues were brought up about morality that people shouldn't have to spend so much time trying to resolve. I guess this is because I have the Christian point of view that we're all sinners, any of us could have been in circumstances that caused us to act criminally, in a way it's all God's grace if we don't. But nevertheless crimes must be punished. The Bible clearly says that if someone kills a human being he must die for it. So all the ponderings about whether or not someone is completely evil or partially evil or what not are just red herrings.
Perhaps, for you, it is because of your Christian point of view.
But, in general, a Christian point of view isn't required to come to the same conclusion.
I'm atheist and my moral code does not come from the Bible.
And my conclusions are the same as yours - for other reasons - but the conclusions are the same.
™ Version 4.2
(1)