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

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

[Stoat]

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

By Charles Laurence in New York
(Filed: 20/02/2005)

A "depravity rating" that measures evil and will help courts decide whether convicted murderers should face execution or just imprisonment 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 killers are those who have acted 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, explicitly 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, or evil, 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", only five levels below the most depraved killers – because he did not torture his victims as he killed them.

Billy the Kid, the 19th-century teenage outlaw who is said to have killed between nine and 21 men, is classified as level 6 ("impetuous, hot-headed, without marked psychopathic features"), while Jean Harris, a school headmistress who in 1980 murdered her lover in a fit of jealousy, is deemed to be only level 2.

Harris found a rival's underwear in the drawer of her lover, Dr Herman Tarnower, the man who launched the Scarsdale Diet, and killed him in rage.

"It was the classic crime of passion, a single lifetime act of a person who, though immature and egocentric, otherwise shows no traits of evil," Dr Stone said.

Dr Welner's scale of depravity was drawn up after taking into account the views of thousands of ordinary people who contributed to a website about their understanding of evil. It covers the intent, the action and the "attitude" of the criminal.

According to Dr Welner, evil intent could describe the desire to carry out a crime for its excitement alone, to terrorise others, to traumatise the victim or to target a victim based on prejudice.

Evil action would take into account whether a killer has prolonged the duration of a victim's suffering, inflicted an "exceptional degree of physical harm" or imposed such suffering on a victim that they demonstrate "panic, terror, and helplessness".

Dr Welner said: "People say evil is like pornography: they know it when they see it, but can debate whether or when it is harmful. This is not true. We are finding widespread agreement about what is evil."

He hopes to complete his research this year and expects the scale to be adopted by courts in the US soon. The scale is already in demand from public prosecutors and State Departments of Justice, and also from defence lawyers, who have read his academic papers.

"It is already being used informally by these lawyers," he said. "But we want to submit it to legislatures for formal adoption into state criminal and civil (tort) law.

"That will slow it down, but I do believe it will become part of our system of law within a few years."

[LauraleeBraswell]

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

That is what I thought. There is a difference between killing and murdering. Why don't they add unintentional Manslaughter while they're at it.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

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

Psychiatrists are Quacks

Courts are Kangaroos

[Wurlitzer]

" 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."

I would agree IF it was a "scientific basis" but just because these clowns have doctor in their title does not mean they even know what a "scientific" method is.

Their theories cannot be proven, tested using a scientific method. How many pieces of human debris have been released from our prisons because Dr.Ima Nutcase rubbed his distinguished chin and proclaimed "Mr. C.Molester is no threat to society"?

Anything these clowns say have to be prefaced with "IMO" as they cannot prove anything. Its a guess at best.

Their opinions have served to distort truth and reality and certainly have been used as a major component in PC thought.

[Muleteam1]

>>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?<<

From the juries I have sat on I would say that most of the individuals with me would not have known a scientific framework from an opinion. Under our system of justice, a jury is supposed to be members of the suspect's peers, not students of ethics or pyschiatry. To require a jury to "filter" the evidence through a screen is subverting the jury system and removing their freedom and perogative to reach their own judgement.

You also had asked if I agree with you on certain types of murderers. Without the details of each of these crimes, I cannot answer your question.

The best part of our jury system is that we have a system that allows jurors to use their own intelligence and/or prejudices to reach a judgement.

Muleteam1

[dljordan]

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

It's a clever psycho-babble trap. People who defend themselves and who aren't "psychopathic". They can and in the case of some government psych's do, find anyone they want to be psychotic if it suits their nefarious purposes. Just my cynical view.

[mabelkitty]

Understanding why someone committed a crime is not a requirement for determining one's innocence or guilt, but rather a fanciful way of satisfying the rubber-neckers in our society.

Nobody knows why Scott Peterson killed his wife - would knowing the reason why change the fact that he would get at least the minimum of a life sentence? According to this little game, he could please a 2 and get off with minimum damamge. Dead people don't talk, so he could claim the child belonged to another man.

This is jury tampering plain and simple.

[Rockingham]

This is stunning: psychiatrists, the most obdurate of professionals, finally recognizing the existence of evil. We live in wondrous times.

[Smartaleck]

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

Compare and contrast. It's a teaching method used for conveying knowledge.

[Smartaleck]

"I don't think number 1 should be on the list at all."

Where would you suggest it start? Gotta start somewhere?

Perhaps it should be zero not two though?

[djf]

Reecently, there was something on PBS about this.

Psychiatrists are loathe to use the word "evil". They want to think everything is organic and treatable.

But they are reluctantly admitting that there is such a thing as "evil".

Basic depravity, total lack of conscience, no empathy whatever, completely self-centered.

Like an animal. Worse, actually.

[oldbrowser]

I'd say he is a fourteen.

[Shanda]

Interesting although I don't agree with all of them.

Of course one who kills for self defense should get a negative as they are in fact doing good.

[oldbrowser]

Why should a "thoughtful" killer be more evil than a "thoughtless" killer. I think the method of killing and the number or killings are more important than how much planning was involved. Also justification should be considered. We go to a great deal of effort to plan an execution, is that evil ? Our military goes to great efforts to plan, train, manufacture weapons, practice effectiveness, is this a trait of evil ?

[FreedomCalls]

Living up to your screen name I see....

[FreedomCalls]

Our military goes to great efforts to plan, train, manufacture weapons, practice effectiveness, is this a trait of evil ?

They are practicing ways to bring about a desired outcome with as few deaths as possible. If it did not matter, the whole force of the United States' military would destroy a country in a few seconds. That's why they train. They train to hit their target and nothing more.

To even insinuate that their could be linkage to the US military forces and evil is reprehensible.

[oldbrowser]

That's my point exactly.

[FreedomCalls]

That's my point exactly.

That the military is evil?

[Caipirabob]

I'm going back to the "Boring Bikini Babe" thread.

[oldbrowser]

That the military is evil?

That the military is not evil.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

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 killers are those who have acted 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, explicitly uses the word "evil" in its legislation. Dr Welner said that others used synonyms such as "heinous", "cruel" and "atrocious".


Feed Terri on Good Friday BTTT Ping!