In Reply to: Re: he wasn't crazy? posted by Bryon on December 19, 2002 at 03:49:41:
Byron:
If you are going to use the sciences, use them correctly. Criminally insane if you insist on insanity. Insanity is a broad band in and of itself and does not automatically absolve individuals of responsibility for their actions.
Berg was multi-disordered. I would hazzard a guess that he had several significant psychiatric disorders. Lack of premeditation and awareness of his actions are not on that list. At times he refered to his own serious sins, perhaps he just valued them more than anything else. Pedophiles have been known to state that they actually "love" thier victims and were not really "hurting" them. This does not eliminate their awareness that what they are doing is a serious crime. Berg knew his abuses against children were serious crimes, hense the elaborate doctrines he invented to support his ongoing abuses. It is also important to note that lack of remorse also does not eliminate Berg's accountability for these crimes.
I believe Berg's disorders do not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. Long before the level of his disorders become obvious he was criminally abusing children. It is very tiring to me to observe you splitting hairs over these issues. What are your motives for this? I think your approach is better suited to gen x or crossfire. Often we look for some motive or reason for such terrible behaviours. I do not know what actually occurs in the brain of a pedophile or a rabid dog. I do know they are both dangerous and their behaviour must be mitigated to secure the safety of others. I believe the mystery of iniquity applies here in relation to berg and a terminal biological infection applies in the case of the rabid dog. In my opinion justice, accountability and forgiveness are individual issues and are not neccesarily mutally inclusive or exclusive.
Sincerely
Rocky