An interesting article on some of the debates within psychology, forensics, and criminal law over the value of the term “evil” — can it be used, should it be used, and what are the advantages and disadvantages thereof.
“I think the main reason it’s better to avoid the term evil, at least in the courtroom, is that for many it evokes a personalized Satan, the idea that there is supernatural causation for misconduct,” said Dr. Park Dietz, a forensic psychiatrist in Newport Beach, Calif., who examined the convicted serial murderer Jeffrey Dahmer, as well as Lyle and Erik Menendez, who were convicted of murdering their parents in Beverly Hills.
“This could only conceal a subtle important truth about many of these people, such as the high rate of personality disorders,” Dr. Dietz said. He added: “The fact is that there aren’t many in whom I couldn’t find some redeeming attributes and some humanity. As far as we can tell, the causes of their behavior are biological, psychological and social, and do not so far demonstrably include the work of Lucifer.”
The doctors who argue that evil has a place in forensics are well aware of these risks, but say that in some cases they are worth taking. They say it is possible – necessary, in fact, to understand many predatory killers – to hold inside one’s head many disparate dimensions: that the person in question may be narcissistic, perhaps abused by a parent, or even charming, affectionate and intelligent, but also in some sense evil. While the term may not be appropriate for use in a courtroom or a clinical diagnosis, they say, it is an element of human nature that should not be ignored.
Dr. Angela Hegarty, director of psychiatry at Creedmoor who works with Dr. Stone, said she was skeptical of using the concept of evil but realized that in her work she found herself thinking and talking about it all the time. In 11 years as a forensic examiner, in this country and in Europe, she said, she counts four violent criminals who were so vicious, sadistic and selfish that no other word could describe them.
For better or worse, the increasing secularlization of society has meant we tend to shy away from the “E” word. That has the positive result of making it more difficult to casually demonize folks (or, rather, it makes demonization a bit more subtle), but it also means, I think, that we end up trying to avoid judging people altogether, even in the face of the horrible things they have done and are clearly inclined to do again.
One of my father’s students stopped showing up for class, and was later determined to be a victim of Ted Bundy’s charm. From this I learned “charm” is an asset, not a virtue. Like any tool, its use is up to the one employing it.
It would be appropriate to come up with a secular definition of “evil,” providing that the resulting redirection to neurology or “personality disorders” did not mean that someone who commits heinous crimes could escape punishment.
(C.S. Lewis said something about how he would prefer prison to an open-ended “cure.” Calls to mind a “Clockwork Orange” scenario.)