Rating someone's "evilness" - Acceptable?

ixoy

What does everyone think of the new scale being chamioned in the US that basically rates the "evilness" of a person? Here's an article from the Irish Indo URL=http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=30&si=1344787&issue_id=12116]link[/URL:

A DEPRAVITY rating, that measures evil and will help courts decide whether convicted murderers should face execution, has been drawn up by American psychiatrists.

For decades, doctors shunned the use of the word "evil" on the grounds that it crossed the line between clinical and moral judgment.

Now, however, two studies of the criminal personality have concluded that "evil" should be used to describe the most vicious criminals - and that it can be measured.

In the first study, Dr Michael Stone, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, examined the biographies of more than 500 killers in New York's Mid-Hudson Psychiatric Centre and developed a 22-level "gradations of evil" list.

"After years of study, we have learned to recognise the traits of these people: what they do and why they do it," he said. "It is time to give them the proper appellation - evil." On Dr Stone's scale, the most evil killers, such as the Moors Murderers, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, are classified as "psychopathic torture murderers, with torture their primary motive".

At the other end of the scale, the least evil criminals are those who have killed in self-defence. Dr Stone's scale also takes into account whether a killer has been abused, is a jealous lover of the victim, is a drug user, shows remorse or is power-hungry.

In the second study, Dr Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist and professor at New York University, sought to draw up a scientific definition of the "aggravating" factors in crimes that would determine whether or not a judge and jury can impose the death penalty.

Only one state, Florida, uses the word "evil" in its legislation. Dr Welner said that others used synonyms such as "heinous", "cruel" and "atrocious". He said: "Jurors are left to decide on the fate of criminals on the basis of mere emotions, and we want to define the term.

"It might sound like parsing words to us, but it would not do so to the victim. We need a serious attempt to engage evil in the modern world: we have lost our compass of what is unacceptable. If there is a clear sense of what is beyond the pale, it is easier to promote good."

On Dr Stone's scale, Peter Sutcliffe, the "Yorkshire Ripper", who was convicted in 1981 of murdering 13 women, would be put on level 17 - "sexually perverse serial murderers", or five levels below the most depraved killers - because he did not torture his victims as he killed them.

Now notwithstanding the fact this scale could be used to decide if someone should be executed, is rating the "evilness" of a person acceptable?

On one hand I dislike the notion of evil. It's possible that someone's brain chemistry gives them a stronger predisposition towards committing certain acts, be they murder or something like adultery. But evil surely is making a conscious decision to act on something whilst knowing full well the moral nature of what you're doing. If someone's brain is wired differently, should that be taken into consideration? Or given it's almost impossible to judge (at least by conventional means) should we even have to acknowledge it?

And yet, on the other hand, the hardened part of me wants to war with the more compassionate side. As much as I want to believe in humanity, I also believe that crimes should be answered for. Deciding the price of a crime may depend on a person's culpability and that is partially dictated by their motivation, which such a scale can measure. If this can be used to bring about a more precise and clear form of retributive justice then surely it's something that should be championed.

Or perhaps it's simply the almost clinical concept of assigning a number to someone, pinning someone down in such a precise, almost mechanical fashion. There's something cold about it, accountant like, where you are literally nearly summating a person's soul.

What do you all think? That's it a cold, practical but useful tool? Or an abhorrent form of moral mathematics?

Sleepy

I'd like to see the determinants of the gradation but in general I'd be for it. However, under Bush's administration I'd be afraid of things like homosexuality or atheism would be considered factors contributing towards an individual's "evilness".

simu

Why bother with labels? This will mostly make some people dream of becoming the "evilist-person-evar".

azezil

Oh for crying out loud, are we reverting to such superstitious notions of "eeeevil" and the buggy man. This can only serve to cause indescribeable injustice.