Just read this GQ article on Swedish serial killer Thomas Quick.
Fascinating (if horrible) stuff. I think it’s well worth a read:
In a remote psychiatric hospital in Sweden, there is a man known as Thomas Quick who has been convicted of unspeakable crimes. Over the course of multiple trials, he would tell his brutal stories—of stabbings, stranglings, rape, incest, cannibalism—to almost anyone who would listen. Then, after his eighth and final murder conviction, he went silent for nearly a decade. In the last few years, though, he has been thinking about all he has said and done, and now he has something new to confess: He left out the worst part of all
Can you earn hubris?
If you can convince a number of courts of a version of reality, why should you have to re-examine the evidence and your own ‘beliefs’?
Being technically above reproach, even if you have earned that right by the most stringent definitions applicable, enshrined, even, in legal documents; still does not always equate to being ‘actually right’.
We need more intelligence error-correction or something.
Maybe just more intelligence.
