April 4, 2007--Dapravity Idol
With evil in the headlines, like in the Axis of Evil, there has been an increase in discourse about evil itself—does it exisit; if so, are there ways to distinguish between differing manifestations of evil behavior; even, is there something genetic about homo sapiens that give us the capacity to commit evil acts as there is a genetic capacity to acquire language? There are of course biblical notions, but there are also secular scholars and researchers who have for some time been grappling with these daunting questions.
A professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia has developed a 22-part taxonomy of evil that ranks various types of murder on an ascending scale of evilness—near the bottom are those who kill in self defense; near the top are your psychopathic torture-murderers. His work is essentially theoretical—he did not develop his rankings in order to assist courts and juries which are often charged with the responsibility of making these kinds of distinctions when recommending, for example, if a convicted murderer is to live or be executed.
For them to use in these circumstances, there is an emerging Depravity Scale, also the product of a professor of clinical psychiatry, but this one from NYU. When it is ready to be rolled out for the use of juries, it will supposedly help them distinguish between, in the words of a NY Times report, “the worst of the worst from the really bad.” (Article linked below.) Though it is as yet unpublished, Professor Michael Weiner disclosed to the Times that on his scale one is just “depraved” when intending to inflict “emotional trauma” but is “especially depraved” when seeking to prolong the duration of a victim’s suffering.
Courts for some time have been struggling to find ways to make these kinds of distinctions, particularly when it comes to imposing death sentences. In Arizona, for example, defining “depraved” includes taking into consideration the “senselessness” of the crime, the “relishing” of the murderer, “needless mutilation” (as opposed to, say, the needful mutilation of slashing someone’s throat to commit the murder), etc.
But what to me is most noteworthy about Dr. Weiner’s work is his methodology. Unlike Dr. Michael Stone, the Evil Theorist, he is creating his scale in pretty much the same way the American Idol folks select who to eliminate—Idol has the public phone or text message their votes and then publicly dismisses the contestant who gets the fewest; similarly, Weiner has a Website (http://www.depravityscale.org/) where you can participate by ranking a murder committed with “bare hands” vs. one in which a “customer” kills a prostitute vs. one in which the killer was “inspired” to do so by his or her mother.
These are of course life and death questions that should not be taken lightly (as admittedly I have); but at the moment I’m hoping that Sanjay tonight is finally sent home. And gets a haircut.
A professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia has developed a 22-part taxonomy of evil that ranks various types of murder on an ascending scale of evilness—near the bottom are those who kill in self defense; near the top are your psychopathic torture-murderers. His work is essentially theoretical—he did not develop his rankings in order to assist courts and juries which are often charged with the responsibility of making these kinds of distinctions when recommending, for example, if a convicted murderer is to live or be executed.
For them to use in these circumstances, there is an emerging Depravity Scale, also the product of a professor of clinical psychiatry, but this one from NYU. When it is ready to be rolled out for the use of juries, it will supposedly help them distinguish between, in the words of a NY Times report, “the worst of the worst from the really bad.” (Article linked below.) Though it is as yet unpublished, Professor Michael Weiner disclosed to the Times that on his scale one is just “depraved” when intending to inflict “emotional trauma” but is “especially depraved” when seeking to prolong the duration of a victim’s suffering.
Courts for some time have been struggling to find ways to make these kinds of distinctions, particularly when it comes to imposing death sentences. In Arizona, for example, defining “depraved” includes taking into consideration the “senselessness” of the crime, the “relishing” of the murderer, “needless mutilation” (as opposed to, say, the needful mutilation of slashing someone’s throat to commit the murder), etc.
But what to me is most noteworthy about Dr. Weiner’s work is his methodology. Unlike Dr. Michael Stone, the Evil Theorist, he is creating his scale in pretty much the same way the American Idol folks select who to eliminate—Idol has the public phone or text message their votes and then publicly dismisses the contestant who gets the fewest; similarly, Weiner has a Website (http://www.depravityscale.org/) where you can participate by ranking a murder committed with “bare hands” vs. one in which a “customer” kills a prostitute vs. one in which the killer was “inspired” to do so by his or her mother.
These are of course life and death questions that should not be taken lightly (as admittedly I have); but at the moment I’m hoping that Sanjay tonight is finally sent home. And gets a haircut.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
3:14 PM
2 Comments:
Mr. Liptak's column, which commented on the Depravity Scale research which I have coordinated, apparently has misled you about key elements of the research and fails to advise of the Depravity Scale’s greatest significance.
The research is the first forensic science research to incorporate psychiatric standards, judicial case decision review, and large scale input from the general public (not only surveys).
In a democracy that all too often bemoans unfairness in injustice, the Depravity Scale’s goal of distinguishing the worst of crimes, must in my opinion incorporate each of these elements. In a forensic realm that utilizes the scientific method to crystallize otherwise ambiguous concepts, defining evil crimes must utilize current diagnostic understandings, the clinical experience of evil from a range of forensic sciences beyond psychiatry, and attempts to define evil by law. The idea of societal input does not originate with Simon Cowell -- rather, it is the US Supreme Court that proposed that sentencing in capital litigation reflect societal standards.. And so we are.
The Depravity Scale research has, by the complexity of this approach, established the unfathomable – that consensus of what defines an evil crime can be achieved. From the standpoint of scientific search for answers, this progress validates that our landmark research will contribute greatly to the evolution of justice.
Information about the research has been published in the FBI Crime Classification manual, and is far more complex than the distinction you note here. 26 elements of intent, actions, attitudes, and victimology are under consideration for inclusion in a Depravity Standard. The research is being conducted to carefully determine the nature of the evidence to be gathered and how it is to be weighted as well.
The research has drawn from the input of advisory board members from sixteen disciplines spanning the law and forensic sciences. It includes those supporting and opposing the death penalty who appreciate fairness as a goal we should all aspire to. www.depravityscale.org aims to set an example for justice research to involve the general public because it is the very public affected by laws and the science that shapes them.
I know you are being playful, and I'm no fan of Sanjay's either, but you and your readers owe it to yourself to read the fAQ at www.depravityscale.org and learn how painstaking and multidimensional the research has been conducted.
To date, the Depravity Scale Phase B and Phase C have garnered 17,000 and 5,000 responses to date, respectively – from twenty five countries. Such self-directed participation demonstrates that many personally find the exercise of public input into shaping this Depravity Standard necessary and meaningful.
As a practitioner who witnesses recurring sentencing that does not accurately reflect the seriousness of a crime or lack thereof, I strongly encourage those who see representative laws and democracy as applicable to numerous aspects of controversy to participate in this groundbreaking research and to witness their input making a difference in clinical and legal settings.
Thanks so much for your views. Of course I was taking advantage of your important research to make a bit of a joke. But, with all due respect, even you might agree that to ask anyone who wishes to participate by voting on line as the central method by which you construct your taxonomy, opens your work, as it does "American Idol," to all sorts of manipulation. What might happen, for example, if Howard Stern were to encourage his playful listeners to do to you what he is apparently doing to "Idol"?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home