You may be right. And I may get crucified for this speculation, but just thinking aloud here - I’m not so sure that there is a clean binary cut between psychopaths and everybody else who is not. It wouldn’t surprise me if some psychologist could demonstrate that there is more of a spectrum and that all of us have somewhere between “a little” and “a lot” of the psychopath in ourselves, and that our environment and circumstances may steer us towards accessing and/or reinforcing that part of ourselves, whereas the (hopefully many) who grow up in better, loving environments learn to subdue that part of themselves and keep it at bay, choosing instead to cultivate empathy and other virtues (even if at first just to stay in the good graces of their tribe.)
I think that there is most likely a combination of nature and nurture at play.
Max, I think you’re putting your finger on the right tension, and there’s a distinction from C. S. Lewis that might help clarify it.
Lewis talks about the difference between the “bent” and the “broken.” The bent are those whose wills are twisted or disordered but still capable of responding to truth and goodness—they can, in principle, be straightened. The broken, by contrast, are those whose wills have become fixed in rejection of the good—no longer responsive, but hardened.
What’s important is that Lewis shifts the focus away from how bad the act is to what has happened to the will. That’s a deeper and more difficult question.
I think this helps explain why your reaction to the school shooter case is not weakness or confusion. You’re recognizing that even someone who has done something horrific may still be “bent” rather than “broken”—and therefore still a proper object of pity, even while being fully subject to justice.
At the same time, it also leaves room for the intuition others are expressing: that there may be cases where a person becomes so deeply corrupted that ordinary rehabilitation is no longer realistic.
But here’s the caution: Lewis doesn’t give us a way to confidently sort real people into those categories. And that matters. Once we start declaring that someone is “broken” in that final sense, we’re making a judgment we’re probably not in a position to make.
So it seems to me the most stable position is something like this:
-
Justice is necessary and sometimes severe
-
Rehabilitation should be pursued wherever it is still possible
-
And even in the worst cases, we should be very careful about concluding that a person is beyond all hope
That preserves moral seriousness without collapsing into either sentimentality or dehumanization.
One thing that might help clarify this is the kind of work depicted in Mindhunter, which is based on the early FBI profiling program. What those profilers discovered is that calling someone a “monster” doesn’t actually explain anything—they had to study patterns, causes, and behavior to understand violent offenders. And what they found is that some individuals do exhibit deeply entrenched, recurring forms of violence that make them extremely dangerous and difficult to rehabilitate.
But even there, profiling draws a limit. It can help us understand how someone became this way and how likely they are to offend again, but it doesn’t claim to tell us who is beyond all hope. That seems to line up with Lewis’s distinction: we may be able to recognize very deep disorder, but we’re not really in a position to declare who is finally “broken” in that ultimate sense.
That’s true, Terry: ultimately, only God can judge that. We are, however, in a position to determine whether someone is exceptionally depraved (that is, even more depraved than those who are merely “ordinarily” so, even though depravity is not ordinary), and whether, in such cases, retribution should take precedence over rehabilitation.
These two principles exist in a certain tension, and I believe that when dealing with particularly depraved individuals, the demands of justice must outweigh the merciful ideal of rehabilitation, especially as a matter of justice for the victims and their loved ones.
There are cases in which prioritizing rehabilitation would not only amount to giving another chance to individuals who are highly likely to waste it, but would also constitute an injustice toward the victims.
Sometimes, when we place ourselves in the position of the victims and their families, the right course becomes clearer, at least in my view.
Very apt. We shouldn’t forget - God can fix broken things. Why doesn’t that always happen? …that’s above my pay grade.
My thoughts on punishment is that it should exist and it should be complimented by rehabilitation. Punishment can come in many forms. It can come from lawsuits, it can come from courts where you get sentenced to time in prison and it can come from social canceling. I don’t think Jesus was anti or pro punishment. I think it was not what he focused on.
I don’t support the death penalty but I do support self defense against violent dangerous people where you may have to kill them to be safe. But if the threat is naturalized without them dying, I don’t see killing them later on as punishment. I think violence towards another is only acceptable as self defense.
Let’s say a person breaks into my house and tries to kill me with a knife and I am stabbed, I’m bleeding, they are coming back at me or a loved one I will most definitely aim and fire. My training is stomach to chest. So most likely that’s where I’m shooting. If I shoot them, and they fall down and are bleeding and no longer a threat I’ll remove weapons from them, I’ll call 911 and I’ll try to keep up alive. I’ll hold a towel or whatever and so on.
If someone did this but then escaped, and I survived and then later on I saw them, I would not find it acceptable to shoot them then. I would call the cops.
Or if someone jumps me, and it’s not seemingly lethal. Irs punches and kicks. I’ll fight back. Let’s say I get beat up and they flee and I even know who they are. I won’t show up at their house or whatever and try to fight them. I’ll confront them, I’ll call cops possibly.
But self defense is not the same as punishment. I don’t see physical abuse such as violence including electric chairs or whatever as an appropriate response as punishment.
People who are a threat to society and do evil things should be legally punished and should know they will face social repercussions as well. The Bible mentions obeying the laws of the lands and evil doers fearing the authority. Paul mentions speaking out to those in prison.
You have to have at least some part of yourself, no matter how small, that remains open to being fixed; otherwise, how could God fix you without completely overriding your free will?
The real question, then, is whether someone who takes pleasure in the suffering of the innocent (and who rejoices all the more as that suffering increases) can possess that fundamental openness. In my strictly personal opinion, the answer is no, but only God can judge whether that is truly so.
To be completely honest, there is also a personal hope involved in this, since I admit that I want these people (the people we have talked about in this thread, the sewer rats from Hurt2thecore, Peter Scully etc) to be punished in this life, and even more so in the next. Yes, I do want that. I crave that. So there is some wishful thinking on my part here as well. I would, of course, accept God’s judgment, whatever it turns out to be, but I cannot deny my own wishes. Yes, as a Christian I should wish for these people’s salvation as well, but I am aware that, at least for now, I cannot.
Psalm 69: 22-28
“May the table set before them become a snare; may it become retribution and a trap. May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever.Pour out your wrath on them; let your fierce anger overtake them. May their place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in their tents. For they persecute those you wound and talk about the pain of those you hurt. Charge them with crime upon crime; do not let them share in your salvation. May they be blotted out of the book of life and not be listed with the righteous.”
Of course there are bad Human Spirits, Jesus indicated “You Father is the Devil”. This means there can be many children of the Devil. I’m a Child of Our Father being Born Again. The Teachings of Christ as being Born Again can rid the Child of the Devil in Someone. Also Me being an example as best as I can.
If you are uncomfortable with labeling some people as “bad,” then I would change this to observe that we see people who are habitually destructive of themselves, and/or others, and/or human civilization in general. Then whether you choose to call this bad or not can be considered largely irrelevant, since there remains little doubt things would be better if these destructive habits and behaviors could be eliminated.
But then the question becomes how is it possible to accomplish this? Liberals often talk and act like all we need is education. But I see evidence to the contrary – that people do destructive things even when they know they should not – even though they know the world would better if they did not. I think Christianity brings the realization that we need the help of God to overcome this destructive behavior.
That is a good point. I don’t doubt that some people, through whatever means, have been set on a course of destruction. However, does that mean we should necessarily hate them? With that school shooter case before, I’m not going to deny that that guy was a bad man, nor deny that he did bad things. However, should we be joyous and jubilant that he too was killed? Or, should we equally mourn the death of a man unfortunate enough to fall into the state of disrepair?
Why shouldn’t we be happy when someone we see killing others for no reason cannot go on to kill more and more people? I cannot forget the story of Ted Bundy who escaped from prison so he could kill students at Florida State University. I think many people would have been very happy if he had been killed before he could do that.
I guess I kinda see it as, “it is tragic that people died, but equally tragic that someone who had the same start as me would end their time on Earth doing this; what kinds of tragic events lead to this whole situation of horror?” I see the sadness in both sides: innocent people were killed and, like some sad tale you could go and read, an innocent person was molded to do this.
Your comment suggests a philosophy of revenge-based justice. Do to your offenders what they have done to you. That seems to follow the Code of Hammurabi and the practice of vendetta.
The code of Hammurabi and the practice of vendetta were parts of the justice system in the past. I hope that we have advanced a bit from those times, especially after the teachings of Jesus.
I didn’t say, “Do to your offenders what they have done to you”.
What I said is that if you are a sick f**k who takes pleasure in the suffering and pain of innocent children, then you sure as hell do not deserve to have your rehabilitation treated as the priority. Retribution has to be the priority in that case; which doesn’t mean that you will be treated exactly like you treated your victimes but it certainly means that the primary focus will not be “the rehabilitation” (as if there is something to rehabilitate in a vile animal that sees children as object for his own pleasure and boasts about the suffering he inflicted upon them).
If you think that a kid caught selling drugs and someone who delights in the fact that the children he ‘bought’ for his sick pleasure died after days of sexual agony do not deserve radically different treatment, then we have very different ideas. And that is not to say that I am advocating, ‘Do to your offenders what they have done to you.’ What I am saying is that, in cases like these, the demands of justice must outweigh the demands of mercy.
I would also say that it is very easy to be “good” and kind-hearted when something like that has not happened to you or to someone you love. But when you put yourself in the victim’s shoes, or in the shoes of their loved ones, things change dramatically.
For those kind of people, my prayer is precisely that of Psalm 69:27–28. “Charge them with crime upon crime; do not let them share in your salvation. May they be blotted out of the book of life and not be listed with the righteous”.
And there is one point that cannot be stressed enough: when there is too much mercy for the worst type of criminals there is neither justice nor mercy for their victims.
Well, Jesus has been quite clear on the subject.
Matthew 18:6 :”If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
And yes, He was talking about that. Let me make a couple of citations from here (PDF) Matthew 18,1-14 and the Exposure and Sexual Abuse of Children in the Roman World, Biblica 98 (2017): 37-54 (Proofs).
- This paper will argue that Matt 18,1-14 is concerned with the welfare of children (παιδίον = “one of these little ones”), and Jesus presents eschatological warnings of divine retribution against any disciple who scandalizes (σκανδαλίζω) children through sexual abuse or exposure, rather than welcoming (δέχομαι) them and providing for their needs
- “ In its most basic sense, σκανδα- λίζω is a sin or ethical offense, although the context must determine the actual sin or ethical offense that is in view 6 . The common interpretation of Matt 18,6 argues that σκανδαλίζω means causing a fellow-disciple to lose their faith. However, Pss. Sol. 16,7, the first text prior to the NT to use the active form of σκανδαλίζω, indicates that this term is used in the context of sexual sin: “Restrain me, O God, from sexual sin, and from every evil woman who scandalizes the foolish” (ἐπικράτησόν μου ὁ θεός ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας πονηρᾶς καὶ ἀπὸ πάσης γυναικὸς πονηρᾶς σκαν- δαλιζούσης ἄϕρονα). The interpretation of σκανδαλίζω in Matt 5,29- 30 is also clear. The source of scandal is the “right eye” (εἰ δὲ ὁ ὀϕθαλ- μός σου ὁ δεξιὸς σκανδαλίζει σε) or “right hand” (καὶ εἰ ἡ δεξιά σου χεὶρ σκανδαλίζει σε), and the action is committed against a “woman” (γυνή) (5,28). The context indicates that the scandal is sexual sin, namely “adultery” (μοιχεύω). The strongest argument that the σκανδαλίζω refers to sexual sin is the clear parallels between the excision statements in Matt 5,29-30 and Matt 18,8-9. If Matthew is following Mark 9,43-48 at this point (which is likely), he has redacted the statements to align with Matt 5,29-30. While Mark 9,42-48 has three excision statements (“hand”, “foot”, “eye”), Matthew has two: “hand and foot” are paired in 18,8, and “eye” in 18,9. Mark indicates that the hand and foot are to be “chopped off” (ἀποκόπτω) in 9,43.45, but Matt 18,8 heightens the seriousness of the offending member by indicating that you are to “cut it off and throw it from you (ἔκκοψον αὐτὸν καὶ βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ)”, which parallels Matt 5,30. CHILDREN 5 Instead of following Mark 9,47 with the verb ἐκβάλλω, Matthew uses ἐξαιρέω in 18,9; the only other occurrence of ἐξαιρέω in Matthew is in 5,29. As in Matt 18,8 and 5,30, Matt 18,9 and 5,29 indicate that you are to “throw it from you (βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ)”. The use of the active form of σκανδαλίζω in Pss. Sol. 16.7 and Matt 5,29- 30 in the context of sexual sin, and the parallels between Matt 5,29-30 and the redactions of Mark 9 in Matt 18,8-9, suggest that the meaning of σκαν- δαλίζω in 18,6 is sexual sin 7 . Since a literal “child” is in view, the scandal may be the sexual abuse of children. “
And I’m certainly not going to be more merciful than Jesus. Having “ a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea” isn’t exactly what I would think of when I think about rehabilitation.
I think that is a bit uninformed and naïve. Yes some people who do such things endured terrible conditions as children, BUT some have done this with no such conditions and others who endured those conditions never did anything of this sort. Ultimately it comes down to choices people make and the habits they form because of them. Yes some conditions can make extreme choices seem a bit more reasonable but I don’t think they really change the basic morality of those choices. We can respond to parental behaviors both by following the example of it ourselves and also by repudiating it – I see numerous examples of both types of responses over a broad spectrum of different behaviors.
This literally can’t be overstated. The notion that human beings are born fundamentally good is an inheritance of Enlightenment thought (consider, for example, Rousseau’s idea of the “noble savage”). But this view not only contradicts observable reality; it also stands in direct contradiction with Christian doctrine, which holds that human nature was wounded by the Fall.
This is not to say that all people are equally depraved, or anything of the kind, but It means that there is a wound in human nature, and that this wound manifests itself differently in different persons.
At the end of the day
It’s our choices that define who we are, all the more so because God has written His law upon our hearts and souls, and His grace never forsakes those who seek Him.
I suppose I never considered such a possibility. My father was an ex-New York State Trooper. I know many times he was adamant that some people can’t be changed. I often thought that that was just the chiseled, battle-hardened part of him saying that. However, I suppose I should consider that sometimes true evil can come into people’s lives in ways that I don’t understand yet.
- Max, I think that’s a really thoughtful step forward. You’re taking your father’s experience seriously—which matters—and at the same time recognizing that there may be factors at work in people’s lives that aren’t immediately visible. That’s not a contradiction; that’s you widening your understanding.
- One thing that might help here is to separate two questions that are getting close together:
- Why some people become capable of very serious evil?
- What we should conclude about them, and how we should respond?
- Your father’s experience gives him a very clear view of the second question—what people are capable of, and the need to take that seriously. That’s real knowledge. But the first question—how people get there—is often more complex than it looks from the outside, which is what others in the thread are pointing toward. So it’s possible to hold both of these at once:
- Some people may become deeply shaped by patterns we don’t fully understand
- And some of those same people may still need to be dealt with very seriously for the sake of others
You don’t have to resolve all of that into a single conclusion right away. The fact that you’re recognizing the tension instead of flattening it is actually a good sign.