Psychiatrists devise 'depravity rating' to help courts decide on death sentences

The Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | February 20, 2005 | Charles Laurence

[Stoat]

[SpyGuy]

Why is "self-defense" even on this chart?

[Paul Atreides]

Where would Ted Kennedy rank on this scale? He deserves the same number he sees when he steps on the bathroom scales.

[Stoat]

Although this scale appears to be a worthwhile tool in that it provides perspective on degrees of evil and takes into account the suffering of the victim, I take strong issue with self defense being categorized as evil at all.....a legal and necessary killing done in self defense is not evil but part of our basic instict for survival,

[BenLurkin]

This particular assessment is squarely in the hands of the jury. It is not fit subject matter for expert testimony.

Prosecutors are taking a cheap shot by bringing in phony science to intimidate jurors from exercising their independent judgment.

[FreedomCalls]

I don't think number 1 should be on the list at all. Putting "killing someone in defense of your own life" on the list is politics.

[Stoat]

Why is "self-defense" even on this chart?

LOL you beat me to it, my sentiments exactly,  Please see my previous post #4

[FreedomCalls]

Where would Ted Kennedy rank on this scale?

He's a 10 or a 12.

[Free and Armed]

Agreed.

[FreedomCalls]

I don't think number 1 should be on the list at all. Putting "killing someone in defense of your own life" on the list is politics.

[downwithsocialism]

I agree with the self-defense comments here. There is nothing "depraved" about defending yourself. A lot of the rest makes sense, except for the fact that the list was compiled by a bunch of psychiatrists. I wouldn't trust anything with those authors.

[satchmodog9]

14

[SpyGuy]

Where would Ted Kennedy rank on this scale?

I'd say somewhere between 9 and 14 (inclusive).

[Stoat]

This particular assessment is squarely in the hands of the jury. It is not fit subject matter for expert testimony.

I would suggest that this is merely an additional tool being given to jurors, a mechanism by which levels of depravity can be measured.

Prosecutors are taking a cheap shot by bringing in phony science to intimidate jurors from exercising their independent judgment.

No one is suggesting that the jury be taken out of the picture and replaced with this scale.  It shouldn't intimidate anybody, rather it may help them to understand the reasons why a truly evil person deserves an exceptional sentence. 
 

[Redbob]

What makes you think that loathsome toad can even SEE his bathroom scales?

[BenLurkin]

We are in disagreement on each of these points. In my opinion it is an invasion into the jury process.

I understand that this would be a "tool" offered to the jury. However what is or isn't egregiously 'evil' should be found by the jurors based not upon some "expert" formulation, but solely upon their personal experiences, socialization, religious and family training and internalized beliefs.

Just my opinion of course.

[Muleteam1]

Rediculous! Our justice system is in a sad shape already and there is little wonder when jurers are told how to characterize the evidence.

Muleteam1

[Stoat]

Rediculous! Our justice system is in a sad shape already and there is little wonder when jurers are told how to characterize the evidence.

So, should I understand that you do not feel it would be helpful for the law to recognize the level of viciousness in a killer?  Do you not think that if you were a juror at a murder trial, that it might be helpful to you to be provided with a scientific framework to understand the crime better, so that you might render the best judgment?  I think that it would be helpful for there to be a scientific basis for saying that a psychopathic serial killer who kills randomly and for fun should get a far more severe sentence than an otherwise law-abiding person who, for example, flies into a fit of rage upon finding a husband or wife in bed with another person.  Do you feel that these two killers should be treated in exactly the same way?

Again, nobody is suggesting that this scale replace the jury but that it merely provides a tool for understanding the nature of the crime. 

[FreedomCalls]

I don't think he is a 14 as he didn't set out to intentionaly kill her. He didn't plan the kill. After he put her in a position where she would die, he left her there and tried to hide his involvement. That means he killed her simply because she was in his way. Had she lived, it would have been a sex scandal. Had she died he would have this drunk driving death hanging over him. So his plan was to run away from it altogether. His plan failed.

[satchmodog9]

He did, in a self serving manner, scheme to get away from the problem to save his political ass. You are probably correct, it just sounded good.