Yesterday I was talking to an acquaintance who has very strong views on non-violence. She firstly brought up the subject of Abu Hamza and how 'disgusting' it was that he had been extradited to the 'wicked' US. This absolutely appalled her. She was particularly furious that his hook had been removed (?) - she seemed to think it was some sort of vindictive act of a spiteful state. I said that due process had been followed and personally I felt he should have been extradited a long time ago, and that the UK has been more than fair to him. I didn't know about the hook thing but I suggested it was to stop him hurting himself or other people, just as they probably removed his shoelaces.
She then said 'What about the man who killed those two policewomen - I thought that was awful', yes I agreed that was terrible, she said 'That poor man - I hope the police treated him properly, they could hurt him! How do they know he even did it?'. After I picked my jaw off the floor I replied that he it seems very clear that he was the perpetrator, and that he had handed himself in and I'm sure the police didn't treat him any differently to anyone else. Then I asked her if she had more sympathy for him than the 2 women he killed? After a long pause she said 'Maybe not more, but just as much'.
Warming to her barmy theme, she then moved on to Anders Brevik. I thought she couldn't possibly have the same view of someone who killed 80 people, most of them children. But no, she excelled herself even here - she felt sorry for him, he was a 'lost soul'. She was very reluctant to express any sympathy for his victims, or their relatives, and it was clear she really felt more for him than them.
Now obviously these are all complex issues, and the reasons criminals behave in the way they do are manifold. But while I think we must seek to understand why people have chosen to commit heinous acts I draw the line at feeling sympathy for them.
I didn't think people like her existed and I'm now wondering if some of the more puzzling decisions by courts relating to criminals, and particularly human rights decisions on criminal asylum seekers, can be explained by people like her. This phenomenon of dismissing the victims, the victims relatives, and the affront to our whole society, to concentrate wholly on the 'poor' perpetrator whose rights may be violated must be down to people like her in positions of power in the legal system.
I wonder if their motivation is a kind of 'holier than thou' feeling they get because they are so Jesus-like they can feel more sympathy for criminals than victims. It's perverse.
AIBU to think this is very worrying? And AIBU to think she was off her rocker?!