JAAPL
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 33:2:280-281 (2005)
Copyright © 2005 by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Carré, A.
Right arrow Articles by Papapietro, D. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Carré, A.
Right arrow Articles by Papapietro, D. J.
LETTERS
Editor:

We would like to return to an exchange of ideas in the Journal in 2003 between Drs. Simon1 and Welner2 regarding the role of psychiatry’s quantifying for the courts as clinical concepts the moralistic notions of depravity and evil. While we applaud Dr. Welner’s efforts to measure empirically such concepts, which have long been the domain of philosophy and theology, and though such research may have some heuristic value, we argue that the final results should not be for clinical application in a courtroom.

We agree that respect for the full humanity of the individual compels psychiatry and psychology to inquire into an individual’s state of mind at the time of his or her crime, to identify possible mitigating factors against a death penalty. However, we contend that no mental health professional should set out to present an opinion justifying or arguing for the imposition of a death penalty.

Beyond the established role of determining competency or identifying mitigating factors, Dr. Welner2 invites psychiatry and psychology to an ever more challenging and dangerous role in assessing whether an individual crime is so depraved that the individual who committed it deserves execution. Dr. Welner justifies his position by asserting that "there’s far more effort devoted to the question of who a person is or why that person did something rather than just look at what the person did."3 He wants to simplify the court’s struggle when it comes to capital punishment. Either a crime is depraved enough that the individual ought to be executed, or not. His Depravity Scale sets out to quantify the amount of depravity in a crime, to disregard the confusing information about who the person is who committed the crime, and to allow a jury to evaluate merely the criminal’s appropriateness for a death penalty based solely on the crime’s depravity score.

We most strongly disagree with Dr. Welner’s plan to provide to courts—and in particular to juries—a scale of depravity presented with the force of science. The court would receive such a scale ostensibly as an empirically based and authoritative determination of evil and depravity, thereby allowing the jury to impose a death sentence with the erroneous reassurance that science has guided their decision.

Any research that intentionally provides support for an individual to be killed cannot be in the best interest of society and certainly must not come from a field devoted to improving the welfare of individuals. Pellegrino,3 writing about the complicity of physicians with Hitler during World War II, argued:

Clearly, protection of the integrity of medical ethics is important for all of society. If medicine becomes, as Nazi medicine did, the handmaiden of economics, politics, or any force other than one that promotes the good of the patient (emphasis added), it loses its soul and becomes an instrument that justifies oppression and the violation of human rights [Ref.4, pp 307–8].

Alexandre Carré, MD and Daniel J. Papapietro, PsyD

Connecticut Valley Hospital
Whiting Forensic Division
Middletown, CT

References

  1. Simon RI: Forensic psychiatrists should not testify about evil (editorial). J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 31,413–16, 2003[Free Full Text]
  2. Welner M: Legal relevance that evil be defined and standardized (editorial). J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 31,417–21, 2003[Free Full Text]
  3. Ramsland K: The depravity scale, in Evil, Part 3: Depraved Indifference. Crime Library, Court TV, January 10, 2002 (Available at http://origin-www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/evil3/6.html?sect=19)
  4. Pellegrino ED: The Nazi doctors and Nuremberg: some moral lessons revisited (editorial). Ann Intern Med 127:307–8, 1997[Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Am Acad Psychiatry LawHome page
J. L. Knoll IV
The Recurrence of an Illusion: The Concept of "Evil" in Forensic Psychiatry
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, March 1, 2008; 36(1): 105 - 116.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Carré, A.
Right arrow Articles by Papapietro, D. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Carré, A.
Right arrow Articles by Papapietro, D. J.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS