The Austrian Rapist Trial

Normally, I don't go in for posting this sort of thing. But the case is so outrageous, this particular outline seemed worth a skim.

I'm usually pretty hard-hearted about stories in the news. Humans have been doing truly revolting things to one another for millenia and modern civilization hasn't completely eradicated those still inclined to barbaric behavior. (In too many instances, it's going backwards.) But this story got me. In particular, along with all the other things about which to be truly appalled here, are the statements of this creature's defense attorney, himself a piece of work, to judge by these:

'Leave everything you have heard aside. We are not dealing with a monster here but a man. You have to leave all the emotional stuff aside.'

'My client could have argued that he was insane. He could have claimed that he was not normal and try to fool the psychiatrists. But he did not do that.'

'Instead he admits he always wanted a second family, wanted to care for that second family.'

'If he was just a rapist he would have used condoms.'

'If he wanted to harm his family he could have stopped caring for them and gone back to his life as a respectable businessman with the message on his tombstone eventually reading, "Here lies a respectable man".'

'He could have got rid of his family if he didn't care for them. But he did care for them, slept with them in the cellar, spent Christmas with them. He cared for his second family.'

This raises the phrase "rationalizing evil" to all new heights. After Fritzl's case is over, I'd be inclined to put the lawyer on trial.