Quantcast

Evil as a psychiatric descriptor...

Jr_Bullit

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!
Sep 8, 2001
2,028
1
North of Oz
Long article (what else is new with me), but good...
For the Worst of Us, the Diagnosis May Be 'Evil'
By BENEDICT CAREY

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/08/health/psychology/08evil.html?oref=login

Published: February 8, 2005

Predatory killers often do far more than commit murder. Some have lured their victims into homemade chambers for prolonged torture. Others have exotic tastes - for vivisection, sexual humiliation, burning. Many perform their grisly rituals as much for pleasure as for any other reason.

Among themselves, a few forensic scientists have taken to thinking of these people as not merely disturbed but evil. Evil in that their deliberate, habitual savagery defies any psychological explanation or attempt at treatment.

Most psychiatrists assiduously avoid the word evil, contending that its use would precipitate a dangerous slide from clinical to moral judgment that could put people on death row unnecessarily and obscure the understanding of violent criminals.

Still, many career forensic examiners say their work forces them to reflect on the concept of evil, and some acknowledge they can find no other term for certain individuals they have evaluated.

In an effort to standardize what makes a crime particularly heinous, a group at New York University has been developing what it calls a depravity scale, which rates the horror of an act by the sum of its grim details.

And a prominent personality expert at Columbia University has published a 22-level hierarchy of evil behavior, derived from detailed biographies of more than 500 violent criminals.

He is now working on a book urging the profession not to shrink from thinking in terms of evil when appraising certain offenders, even if the E-word cannot be used as part of an official examination or diagnosis.

"We are talking about people who commit breathtaking acts, who do so repeatedly, who know what they're doing, and are doing it in peacetime" under no threat to themselves, said Dr. Michael Stone, the Columbia psychiatrist, who has examined several hundred killers at Mid-Hudson Psychiatric Center in New Hampton, N.Y., and others at Creedmoor Psychiatric Center in Queens, where he consults and teaches. "We know from experience who these people are, and how they behave," and it is time, he said, to give their behavior "the proper appellation."
 

Jr_Bullit

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!
Sep 8, 2001
2,028
1
North of Oz
I think the point the main psychiatrist is trying to make is, yes, it's the perfect descriptor for individuals to use, but in a court of law if you use words like that to describe a man to a modern US Jury - he's gonna hang. And, considering that there's a significant portion of society that is against the death penalty, and even those who are for the death penalty usually want it to be fully justified in every application (at least those that are publicized), they need to base their "terminology" around medical terms, not emotional ones.

Dunno about you, but if a doctor told me what the Evil bastard did, I'd come to the 'Evil' conclusion on my own. ;)
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
Well, if you're gonna hang anyone, these are the ones to hang. Whether you agree or disagree with the death penalty should not change the definition of evil. These people deserve the full force of the law, whatever that is.
 

Jr_Bullit

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!
Sep 8, 2001
2,028
1
North of Oz
fluff said:
Well, if you're gonna hang anyone, these are the ones to hang. Whether you agree or disagree with the death penalty should not change the definition of evil. These people deserve the full force of the law, whatever that is.
Okay, so do you believe that we should not "try to help" these individuals, or even study them in an institution to find out what makes them tick?

Often - I find myself hating the insanity plea, partly because I'm not entirely certain we want to keep insane people around so much anyways :rolleyes: but, since society seems to think we should take pity on those who are "insane" and "try to help them" and "rehabilitate them", then how can we call them evil when on trial? Do they not deserve the opportunity to convince us they're simply medically insane?
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
Jr_Bullit said:
Okay, so do you believe that we should not "try to help" these individuals, or even study them in an institution to find out what makes them tick?
Not really. I see little benefit in either.

I doubt that they can or even want to be helped. A psychoanalyst friend of mine told me of a case where she was asked to provide a psychological report on a man who killed a baby. He showed no remorse and blamed the baby for his incarceration. Her report said that he would do the same thing again in the same circumstances and that he was dangerous. Because it was commissioned by the defence it was suppressed, but that's beside the point. It seems that people like this do not change.

Unless we can use 'what makes them tick' to identify other potentially 'evil' people early and incarcerate/terminate them before they commit 'evil' acts (clearly this would be unacceptable) I see no point in knowing what makes them tick.

I am not in favour of the death penalty (because I so not see that executing a thousand guilty people to balance the chances of killing one innocent person) but I have no problem with these people being locked up for the rest of their lives (unless susbsequently exonerated of course).