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."

[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.