The Hierarchy of Evil

If a person is afflicted with an incurable/untreatable virus or 'disease' that causes them to do evil acts...

Well, yes the affliction is evil, the acts are evil, and so are the people. You may theorize that there can be naturally evil people, yes, and that there can be people who are 'sick'. These 'sick' people are still evil. If they were normal people, they wouldn't do these kinds of things. Their sickness turns them into something else completely, and that something is evil.

Once a person's evil nature is revealed, just think of it like a classic zombie/vampire/werewolf/whathaveyou movie.
"He/she is not your father/mother/brother/etc. any more."

For anyone who thinks that these 'sick' people are not inherently evil, I have three letters for you: B.T.K.

I saw a show on him just the other night. Take a look at the video from his court case and his confession if you haven't seen it yet.

It seems to me this discussion has turned into one about whether or not we should hate or feel sorry for the evil/sick psychopaths. I think it's a little irrelevant to the whole story how you feel about these murderers - and I feel it's completely irrelevant whether or not you think psychology majors are liberal pussies. (I'll refrain from commenting more on that since I don't know if they all really are ;) ).

The problem as I see it was the one that was brought up at the very beginning and in the article as well. That the word evil is so poorly defined that everyone has their own definition of it. Even if you define what the psychological deifinition of evil is it gets complicated as lawyers, juries, judges, journalists, (anyone who has anything to say who isn't a shrink) will think of their definition and not the 'official' one. Basically. Can you imagine anyone getting an even remotely fair trial or fair representation in the media once a Doctor something has declared him evil? (and yes even someone arrested for slaughtering a whole kindergarden deserves a fair trial)

There are already several terms in psychology that are rarely used, or at least clearly defined first, as they often confuse matters more than help describe them. Think of fear, anxiety and 'angst' and what not. I know it's not really the same but imagine being told your friend acted all weird and insane simply because he 'was afraid' instead of getting his strange anxiety disorder explained.

Again, I don't think this should be about whether or not you believe insane murderers should be killed. It's not even whether or not you personally feel that a serial kille is evil - it's about what consequences it could have to use this word in any official context. I think it's a mistake to include a word that is used so heavily in religion and is so emotionally loaded as any sort of scientific or judicial term.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ogron
... and I feel it's completely irrelevant whether or not you think psychology majors are liberal pussies.

---

It's true- psychology majors are liberal pussies. And of course it's relevant. If every state and federal judge in America was a conservative republican, don't you think it would have an effect on our justice system and our society? Defining most kinds of evil could be done very reliably, even across the wacked-out spectrum that is human culture. Serial killers and rapists need this classification direly.

No one is going to deny that evil people exist, so what's wrong with giving them their well-earned label? You're just worried Ogron that they're gonna spread the evil descriptor around like peanut butter and innocent people are going to be wrongfully convicted of crimes. But since we've agreed psychologists are a bunch of bleeding heart liberal pussies, you can rest easy knowing that an evil personality classification would be a tough designation to achieve (like a dishonorable military discharge). You really gotta work for it!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Savaric
No one is going to deny that evil people exist, so what's wrong with giving them their well-earned label?

---

There's nothing wrong with giving someone that label...except for the fact that it's highly subjective and not very useful.

I really don't have a problem with labeling people evil, whether it's because they were 'born evil', had some kind of rough childhood (piss, moan, repeat), or suffer from a mental illness. Sounds like a case of 'same symptoms, different cause' to me. But once you apply the label of 'evil' to someone...what does it get you? Among friends, or those who are at least aware of your personal convictions, it may be fairly descriptive. But on a grand scale (-especially- when you're trying to approach something scientifically!), it just seems like a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters.

Quote:

---

It's true- psychology majors are liberal pussies. And of course it's relevant. If every state and federal judge in America was a conservative republican, don't you think it would have an effect on our justice system and our society?

---

Of course it would, but making blanket claims that you cannot prove or that can be disproved with one example do nothing to further conversation. (But makes for fun arguments)

You forget 1 major point: Psychology is a broad field. It isn't just clinical psychology. Psychology also includes some very scientific areas, any that deal with the behaviour, thought, and mind of people and animals -- biological psychology, neuropsychology. cognitive psychology, comparative psychology, quantitative psychology, etc.


1] My good friend is working on his PhD in psychology and doing research and specializes in 1/f noise and self-organizing systems of the human body. He is also very conservative in his view points.
2] My sister-in-law is a sociology major... is a liberal pussy.
3] My mother specializes in social psychology and is a strict conservative and a mennonite.

-------------------------------------

Now on to the other point. The problem with categorizing any individual as evil is that it is open for extreme interpretation by whoever so happens to be talking. People mention strict criteria for labelling someone as evil, but I seriously doubt anyone who says that have looked at the DSM.

The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistic Manual) is slightly vague in how it reads to the average person and it can leave open to interpretation if not followed correctly (sometimes even when followed correctly, though of course, both sides will argue over who is correct), and i'm sure that amazingly the prosecutions and the defendants psychologists will disagree somewhere. Also, being in a field of science, it is disprovable and in need of updating as any such would be, hence why we are at DSM-IV and some disorders have been severely reclassified.

A good example of this is ADHD, not only because it's been modified in various DSM versions, but because suddenly everyone believes they are capable of diagnosing it based off of the criteria in the DSM only following loosely the diagnostic process. The same would apply to "evil".

In strict cases like you stated previously, Wayne Ford. He was sentenced to death, argument unnecessary. He was found evil by the court systems for his action. Why waste time psychologically profiling?

I.E. Rabid Dog Cases - Quite a bit easier to sort out, you are talking about a physiological disorder and not a disturbance of the mind. For example, if you saw a dog running the streets trying to eat small children, foaming at the mouth and just acting crazy, you'd probably do the same if you saw a person doing it (Call the police, Run, Restrain, etc). How about cases like Ted Bundy? Evil is hard to diagnose and can't be proven by a blood test or cutting the head off and dicing the brain.

I think we can set a criteria to legally define someone as "evil" and have it a little better followed than psychological definition. For the most part we do, we just need to better handle the diagnosed "insane" by the courts and instead go more in depth, not leaving it on just the institutions. Sentencing based on types of psychological problems and not just judgement as a broad category. (i.e. ranking based on crime with disorder)

Damn, I've rambled far too much.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Leoryn
The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistic Manual) is slightly vague in how it reads to the average person and it can leave open to interpretation if not followed correctly (sometimes even when followed correctly, though of course, both sides will argue over who is correct), and i'm sure that amazingly the prosecutions and the defendants psychologists will disagree somewhere.

---

I hadn't given as much thought to actual DSM classifications for evil. But while we're on the topic, I've come up with one. It should be sufficiently vague, and I hope

666.6: Generalized Evil Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified.

When that makes it into the DSM V, the APA better give me credit!

Quote:

---

No one is going to deny that evil people exist, so what's wrong with giving them their well-earned label? You're just worried Ogron that they're gonna spread the evil descriptor around like peanut butter and innocent people are going to be wrongfully convicted of crimes.

---

It's not that I worry about this standardized idea of evil getting innocent people convicted on its own. You say that no one is going to deny that evil people exist but that's not the problem here. The problem is figuring out exactly what that evil is. (And depending on the nature and subject of the discussion I can easily imagine myself trying to deny the existence of evil.) As mentioned in the article - though it's an extreme example - terrorists bent on fighting the US and western world have a very different idea of what evil is. My point is that even though we are more alike than an american and a terrorist, evil probably means something very different to you than to me. This means that when a Doctor Something tells me so and so is evil I will think of what it means to me and not what it means to him. This again means that in the case of having a judge/jury understanding what's wrong with a criminal you will lose something and not gain something by putting the evil label on him.

In my oppinion evil is mostly a religious and emotional term. It helps us feel better when a person is killed if we 'know' he was evil because we know we were justified in removing him from the world. The justice system is not supposed to deal with these things though. It's fine for someone working with these people (police, psychiatrists etc.) to tell him/herself that the man was evil - but IMO it has no place in the courtroom.