If we want to continue a discussion, let's keep it civilised. There's no use in name calling, like "you don't know anything about psychology" or "Your moral compass is non-existent." If we don't agree that there can be disagreement, why should we discuss at all?

So, here's where I agree:
- The guy who did this is obviously a sociopath, probably a psychopath too.
- He deserves to be punished severely or (if he's mentally disabled) to be put in an institution.
- The crime is outrageous, and what happened in the courtroom is outrageous too. And it's difficult to understand what makes a person to such a thing.
- The judge should have taken him out of the courtroom.


But what do you guys really mean when you say "He's an animal", except that it's some kind of expression of your anger?
I have been being blamed here for being anti-American, anti-Western. Well, I'm not. I believe in law and order which is a cornerstone of the American and all western societies. I don't believe in torture or treating people like animals, which is something you usually find in totalitarian countries. That's North Korean or Nazi Germany style.

I think that the discussion "Who's fault is it" is almost useless. Human behaviour is always a mixture of genetic programming, education and social circumstances. That doesn't mean that we're not responsible for what we're doing.
Still, I believe, it's interesting to know what makes a man do such things. What made him different from the rest of his fellow human beings? To understand doesn't mean to excuse.