Can't wait to read this!

[Feliks]

Geoffrey wrote: "Clark
That is knee jerk liberalism at the worst. There are many so called downtrodden who never succumb to his heinous crimes. Fie on you for excusing his perfidy."

What a great thread and (although I am about to upbraid someone sharply) I love that everyone comes out with such passionate and diverse opinions. Its a superb book and its to everyone here's credit that they have an interest in it.

Now then. That being said, did someone really just mutter, 'knee-jerk liberalism'? What the heck?

Is it 'knee-jerk liberalism' to take into account established scientific truths about human psychology, criminology, and sociology? Are we being 'knee-jerk' for referring to the best and most authoritative human knowledge about these topics?

Worse than that: is it 'knee-jerk' to tackle the issue in terms of the individual? What is our society about, other than this approach? Pardon me--are we only supposed to uphold the individual when its convenient? Otherwise we should just lump people together whenever possible, I suppose.

What sense does it make to stack some vague assumption of a 'such-and-such amount of others who didn't succumb' against 'the one who did succumb'--as a way to frame your ethics? Can such a complex problem even be diced up that way with such a dull blade to hand?

Its so easy to take the clumsy route you just did, and turn it back on its head. Like this: "Hey, have you noticed that Republican politicians are always mixed up with little-boy sex scandals and also, generally lead the nation into jingoistic foreign wars, at the same time they're the most energetic draft-dodgers?"

You might naturally reply: "Well what about all the Republicans who aren't characterized by such deeds?"

Yes indeed, what about them? See the point? You're stacking up a 'group' vs the 'individual' and ignoring scale of comparison.

Not recognizing this--draws you down along the same path and it inevitably leads to inconsistency.

Example: if I read you right--your probable stance on the US justice system and crime in the streets is something like this: 'build more prisons, implement the three-strike rule, stop coddling miscreants, just put them all behind bars'. Right? Just like ye Olde England or certain parts of the Middle East. Chop off the tongue of the liar and the hand of the thief.

But doing so, means you're laying blame along group lines. Dispensing punishment 'wholesale'. One group is 'good' but then that --or some other group--is 'bad'. Send them all to the gallows. Question: How many groups does our society actually contain before you run out of convenient pigeonholes?

How soon before you're completely ignoring white-collar crime..or insisting that every white-collar crook is an 'exception' and has to be tried with the utmost respect to his individual case? Leopold and Loeb, anyone?

Perceiving that the 'individual' makes up the 'pattern' is not 'knee-jerk' liberalism; its astute and humane common sense.

[Orgho]

I think that the book is amazing. the movie was really good, but the book was even better.

[Geoffrey]

Right on jennifer. Exactly.