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."

[anniegetyourgun]

A much better source/book on the subject is here.

[muir_redwoods]

It's a baseline comparison reference point, like putting water on the pH scale

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Thanks. Peck is a good author but I have concerns about his "Biblical Lite" approach. Two other, more Biblically solid resources are: The Lies We Believe and ANYTHING by Cloud and Townsend

[armymarinedad]

I wasn't familiar with Hindly and Brady so I was reading up on the Moors Murders and I found an interesting fact in the case that I thought would be of interest to folks considering all the news lately. Here's the quote from the article.

Brady meanwhile has sought permission in vain to be allowed to starve himself to death.

[anniegetyourgun]

Yes, I wouldn't take him on as a theologian, but his take on this is quite good. Can't say much for his other books. I was unaware of the Chris Thurman book....will have to take a look at that one - thanks!

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

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?

Well for me it might make a good tool to decide whether it'd be death by hanging, electric chair, gas, firing squad, stoning, or being buried up to one's neck soaked in gasoline and burned. :-)

[frankiekitty]

11 August 2006

This scale raises a lot of questions for me. First, why is an individual, who kills out of a desperate need to end abuse(5) higher on the scale than a jealous lover (2)? It seems to me that a jealous lover would have far less justification to murder someone than an individual, who kills to end his or more likely her own suffering. He, or more like she, would certainly be in greater danger than a jealous lover, right? Or, does motive carry more weight on this scale than justification?

Secondly, why is a psychopathic individual (10+), one who has lost touch with reality, ranked higher on this scale, than a non-psychopathic individual (-8)? Shouldn't the individual, whose power of reasoning has been significantly diminished; bear greater consideration for clemency than one who knows what he/she is doing is wrong, but does it anyway?

I watched the program on TLC last night. After watching, I did not become any more supportive of the death penalty than I was before I viewed the program. I still don't believe that we have enough information about what causes sociopathic processes, both organically and environmentally, to justify the penalty of death. There are just too many factors. I am not saying that we should just let all these individuals roam free. But, I don't feel that killing them is the right idea either.

Why not make them submit to submit to a longitudinal research study. I realize that this may raise a few eyebrows ethically. However, where are those ethicists when the sates decides to execute these individuals.

[Centurion2000]

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

It identifies that some idiotic DEMOCRAT liberal doctor developed this.

[goldstategop]

Blah. Finally liberal social scientists have discovered something the rest of us have known all along... the existence of evil. Not exactly the stuff of which earth-shattering news is made.

(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em Down Hezbullies.)

[TChris]

I would move #5 into the #2 slot, personally. The line between self-defense in the immediate moment and self-preservation in a longer-term setting is a blurry one.

It seems that this list should be voted on, rather than being simply rubber-stamped.

[Stoat]

This scale raises a lot of questions for me. First, why is an individual, who kills out of a desperate need to end abuse(5) higher on the scale than a jealous lover (2)? It seems to me that a jealous lover would have far less justification to murder someone than an individual, who kills to end his or more likely her own suffering. He, or more like she, would certainly be in greater danger than a jealous lover, right? Or, does motive carry more weight on this scale than justification?

Secondly, why is a psychopathic individual (10+), one who has lost touch with reality, ranked higher on this scale, than a non-psychopathic individual (-8)? Shouldn't the individual, whose power of reasoning has been significantly diminished; bear greater consideration for clemency than one who knows what he/she is doing is wrong, but does it anyway?

These are all excellent questions and I regret that I don't have a clear answer because the article does not go into that level of detail.  The categories were developed and defined as a result of one doctor examining the biographies of 500 killers.  This is not a method that I would consider in any way definitive or representing any absolute and universal truth.  I viewed the article and the chart as merely a starting point in developing a legal definition of the gradations of evil, and I confess that I was rather startled by the vociferous reactions that I got a year ago when I posted this article, which seem to be continuing now from some.  I think that many didn't read the article carefully.

I watched the program on TLC last night. After watching, I did not become any more supportive of the death penalty than I was before I viewed the program. I still don't believe that we have enough information about what causes sociopathic processes, both organically and environmentally, to justify the penalty of death. There are just too many factors. I am not saying that we should just let all these individuals roam free. But, I don't feel that killing them is the right idea either.

Well, this article doesn't address the death penalty or the issues surrounding it except only tangentially and so I can't make use of it to respond to your statement.  Going entirely from my own perspective on the matter and of my limited understanding of the foundations of death penalty law (I am not an attorney) I would wish to suggest that you are making your judgments and forming your opinions based upon completely different criteria than what the law (as I understand it) is based upon.  The death penalty is society's response to the most vicious of all crimes, and is intended to be a statement by the Government that it has the power and the right to provide the most serious possible punishment for the most serious crimes.  It is a statement about the regard that society holds for the life and the welfare of the victim(s) of the very worst crimes. Whether or not the death penalty is invoked is up to existing laws and the jury, and as the article states, this depravity rating is merely intended to be a tool by which a jury can define the level of a person's evil, and thereby assist them with coming toward a conclusion in their deliberations.

Why not make them submit to submit to a longitudinal research study. I realize that this may raise a few eyebrows ethically. However, where are those ethicists when the sates decides to execute these individuals.

Studies are all fine, Lord knows we have bushel baskets of them.  I have no problem with studies as long as they don't interfere with Government's obligation to mete out just, swift and sure punishment to criminals.

[Stoat]

Blah. Finally liberal social scientists have discovered something the rest of us have known all along... the existence of evil. Not exactly the stuff of which earth-shattering news is made.

I agree, particularly considering the fact that nowhere in the article or in any of my comments has there been a suggestion that "the existence of evil" is anything new or earth-shattering.  The article deals with a series of studies which have produced a first attempt at defining the gradations of evil, something that may be of use to juries who are struggling with such weighty issues.

[Stoat]

I would move #5 into the #2 slot, personally. The line between self-defense in the immediate moment and self-preservation in a longer-term setting is a blurry one.

It seems that this list should be voted on, rather than being simply rubber-stamped.

I agree, and fortunately for us all I've seen no indication that it is going to be rubber-stamped.

I would move #5 into the #2 slot, personally. The line between self-defense in the immediate moment and self-preservation in a longer-term setting is a blurry one.

It seems that this list should be voted on, rather than being simply rubber-stamped.

[frankiekitty]

I chose your article instead one of the other five or six listed on my search engine; because yours was the only one, which gave a complete list and description of each level of Dr. Stone's depravity scale. I think, like myself, that is what the readers, the ones who gave such unexpected responses, were after. Dr. Stone may have a website, but I haven't found it yet.

I believe that Dr. Stone's attempts to simplify the sentencing process for juries is misguided. I am not an attorney. I am a social worker. As a social worker; I have extensive experience working with convicted murders and other types of violent offenders.

Tonight, I am viewing a documentary on Dennis Rader, aka BTK. I believe that Dr. Stone would definitely place this individual very high on his scale, perhaps a 22. BTK tortured his victims for the purpose of sexual gratification. He is clearly a sociopath. His crimes are inexplicable. But can all of his acts be chalked up to free will, to evil? I'm sorry I think that's a cop out. Until we understand why individuals commit such inexplicable acts; we will be unable to stop them from reoccurring. What we do know is that those who do commit such acts are clearly not in their right minds. So, what makes Dr. Stone or anyone else think that harsh punishment will be an effective deterrent. Execution is supposed to be a deterrent, right? We don't execute out of a need for vengeance, do we? After all, acts of vengence are "evil", acts, aren't they?

Perhaps this is not the type of discussion you hoped to generate with your article. Perhaps you wanted to keep things strictly legal. In this case; I don't think that's possible.

[Stoat]

But can all of his acts be chalked up to free will, to evil?

That doesn't concern me nearly as much as making sure that he never has the opportunity to harm another person.

 I'm sorry I think that's a cop out. Until we understand why individuals commit such inexplicable acts; we will be unable to stop them from reoccurring.

As long as humans are given any amount of freedom whatsoever, there will always be crime and criminals.  Humans are flawed, and some flaws are worse than others.  Government and Society is not charged with doing nothing unless it has the one magic answer that addresses all conceivable root causes, it is charged with protecting the innocent in the best manner possible given the knowledge and accepted sciences of the time.  Until a magic solution is found that works better, the criminal justice system as we have it is a good start.  It would be a whole lot better if it were not watered down by people who think that treating criminals leniently will somehow reduce crime.  We tried that in the 1960's and 1970's and it was a dismal failure.

So, what makes Dr. Stone or anyone else think that harsh punishment will be an effective deterrent.

I wouldn't pretend to speak for Dr. Stone or anyone else, but most people I know think that harsh punishment is a better deterrent than lax punishment

Execution is supposed to be a deterrent, right?

Yes, and it works quite well as a deterrent providing it's done swiftly and isn't drawn out for 20+ years by endless appeals as it typically is now.  When that's done, it's not much of a deterrent, which of course is the entire goal of the organizations funding and pushing for the endless appeals.

When it doesn't work as a deterrent, it still works quite well in preventing that particular criminal from ever harming another person again..

We don't execute out of a need for vengeance, do we?

I don't have a problem with controlled and thoughtful vengeance, because it is a reflection of society's regard for the innocent.

 After all, acts of vengence are "evil", acts, aren't they?

I suppose that depends upon which star you follow.

Perhaps this is not the type of discussion you hoped to generate with your article.

I didn't have any preconceived notions of what sort of discussion I wanted. 

 Perhaps you wanted to keep things strictly legal. In this case; I don't think that's possible.

As I mentioned previously, I'm not an attorney and so I had no such expectations.  I'm not sure where that supposition comes from.

[norights]

I don't know how many of these programs you have seen but I on the other hand watch them all. I also watch every episode of Forensic Files and read constantly regarding this topic. I have been studying Serial Killers for several years and trying to understand their mental structures.

I understand from this posting that you do not believe in the death penalty???? What about Gary Ridgway "The Green River Killer"? Do you know why he pled guilty to 48 murders? Because he was afraid to go to trial. He was afraid he would get the death penalty. What scares him about that?? He is afraid of being cut up and examined to find the evil that lurks within him. By the way to this day we the tax payers get to pay his living expenses but while on the street any one of us could have been his victim. There is also Tommy Lynn Sells - didn't care who, when, where or why - just killed. He said it was like a drug and if he were to be released from prison he would do it again.

These are the types of individuals that our tax dollars need to be spent on????? We should do more medical testing on these people - but some like Ridgway will not allow that. What about our children's education? The streets that we drive on daily? The children in our country that are starving? The good people in our country that have no medical insurance? I guess I don't understand and probably never will since my son was almost murdered and the son of a bitch got out of prison in 5 years and will soon be off parole - leaving my son defenseless!!!! This is a sad world when people stand up for killers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[norights]

Good let him starve! Save money and food.

[norights]

In my oppinion any person that feels like they are God and decide to take someones - should loose their lives in the same manner.