> laws and rules must be based upon logic to be effective and good for society
Yeah, but let's not forget that "civilized society" is a necessary evil - we accept it simply because we know no better way to minimize suffering, on average. For any one particular individual, the laws of the particular society (s)he happens to be living in are probably far from the laws that would be best for him/her in particular... Some individuals would flourish better in societies where stealing is accepted. Other in ones where murder is accepted, etc.
There's nothing absolutely better about out set of rules and moral values made of o concepts like "don't kill", "don't rape", "don't steal" etc. They are just a good local average maximum... Maybe the actual global maximum of human flourishing would be achieved in a society where rape and murder are allowed in a certain circumstances. I'd personally bet it is, though the definition of that set of circumstances is probably too complex to allow optimal practical implementation of such policies.
I mostly like our current set of rules, but let's not delude ourselves into seeing them as anything other than a local average optimization! The "criminals" are just the unlucky fellas whose traits don't correspond well with flourishing while playing by the rules in our little play pen we call civilized society. Nothing more.
A sadistic murdering rapist can at the same time be a great mathematician, and, judged by the global maximum of the universe, may have a much greater positive contribution to the betterment of the human race through his mathematical discoveries and their consequences (than the relatively minor negative contribution done by taking some of his unlucky victims out of the population a few decades sooner than their natural death) and judged by this one could say he could be a better human being than you in total, even if he/she may have directly killed 20 people, and you may have killed 0.
And be honest with yourself if you think the society we live in is anything but a necessary evil: you know you've felt the desire to murder, or torture, or rape, one time or another, just as any other human being, and that you've been hurt by society because it didn't let you exercise the freedom to do these things. (Yeah, you've been hurt less than the victims of such actions would've been hurt, hence the optimal average given by the current set of rules. But maybe it's not the optimal average for you as and individual.)
(And to put thing in better context: the character that started the talk, Christopher, was far from a sadistic murdering rapist, he was convicted for armed robbery... basically "stealing some crap while holding a gun in your hand to look more terrifying, or for self-defense against the shopkeeper who might have a gun himself and shoot you instead"... something with less negative moral value than most actions of most heads of state I'd guess, and far from "a true monster")