All you're doing, in this interaction, is questioning endlessly. You don't have any proposals.

How do you propose, exactly, that society handle a person that openly admits that they'll do whatever they see fit and decide for themselves what rules they'll follow? And we're not talking about minor rules and infractions, we're talking about major ones like 'don't be violent' and 'don't stalk and terrorize women' and 'don't run a doxxing website' and 'don't extort and steal'

Answer me this: _why_ does society need to 'understand how to behave around him' ?

What's the benefit to society?

The guy stands up in court and basically says 'yeah I don't have any remorse and I'm gonna keep doing it because I don't think it's wrong' - why do we need to try and understand that more?

> 'don't be violent'

The only evidence for this is heresay by the prosecutors.

> 'don't stalk and terrorize women'

As has been pointed out by others in this thread, that was a different person. Go read the article again.

> 'don't run a doxxing website'

You've got me there. But I don't think that comes even close to justifying an indefinite sentance.

> 'don't extort and steal'

Yeah, he shouldn't have done that. But as I said before, it does not at all justify an indefinite sentance.

> The guy stands up in court and basically says 'yeah I don't have any remorse and I'm gonna keep doing it because I don't think it's wrong' - why do we need to try and understand that more?

That is completely false. He is never quoted as saying anything to that effect. Rather, this is the closest thing we get:

> A mental health assessment used as part of the sentencing hearing said he "continued to express the intent to return to cyber-crime as soon as possible. He is highly motivated."

Perhaps the question should be what about cyber-crime he is motivated by. There is no indication that the motivation is anything malicious. It may be thrill that he is motivated by. If that's the case, it should be treated as an struggle with addiction, not evil.

I just sense we're never going to reach an agreement here.

My opinion, in short, is that people exist who simply thrive on chaos and drama. If you've met a person like that or have one of them as a member of your family, you understand. You understand that the power to destroy and create drama gives them a thrill that literally nothing else will ever come close to. You can't treat it, it's very hard to redirect (literally the _exact same activities_ will bore them if the outcome is positive rather than negative) and you can't reliably use them as part of a 'red team' because the first thing they'll destroy is the team cohesion.

If you have any teachers in your family ask them 'do you think that some kids are just born wrong' and they'll tell you all about it. They've seen it.

> How do you propose, exactly, that society handle a person that openly admits that they'll do whatever they see fit and decide for themselves what rules they'll follow?

Here's one method: We simply remove that person from the society, because society is made of rules, not people. In a word: fascism.

Here's an alternative method: We better involve that person in the rule-structuring process. We do our best - through education, therapy, and socialization - to expand our common ground into shared goals; because society is made of people, not rules. If the person is unwilling to participate, then we give them judicious punishment. As a last resort, if the person is a threat to the safety of other people, we remove them from society. In a word: democracy.

The benefit to society is the recognition that both rules and people are living and changing. We can recognize that society is a system, and empower people to be in control of that system, rather than allow the system be in control of us.