It's not relative

I read with interest the statements of the Austrian rapist father complaining about the way the media has portrayed him.
"I'm only being portrayed as a monster and not as someone who committed monstrous acts... I could have killed all of them — then nothing would have happened. No one would have ever known about it."

I see this sort of thinking as endemic in our society, the skewed moral compass that assumes it must be pointing more or less north as long as there is still room to move the needle further south, when in fact it is really the other way around. I do agree with the first half of his statement. He isn't a monster. He is a fallen being capable of unthinkable actions but he is still a son of Adam, made in the image of God, loved by God and can still submit himself to Christ's lordship and receive grace. The term monster is simply our way of distancing ourselves from him. So we can glory in the comparative sinlessness of our own lives. This is in fact exactly what Friztle is doing with the second half of his statement - he can show that he is also comparatively good, its all a question of your standard.

Then we consider his anticipated defense - insanity. The proof being that all the things he did were so bad, how could a good person do that without being crazy? The proof he is a good person? Well, think of what he COULD have done.

Lower the bar enough, and everyone is good, and those who aren't have some sort of mental disorder, so it isn't their fault, it is society's. There is a great quote by G.K. Chesterton on this subject -

"Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt."