Forensic definition of evil

[blunomore]

For those of you who, like myself, take a (purely academic!) interest in crime, this should be interesting:

If a court considers a crime to be "depraved" or "heinous," it can lay down harsher sentences. The question though, is what is a fair way to distinguish crimes that are truly "evil".

This standard is being developed in the US, but it would assist in all legal systems if an instrument can be developed to assist with sentencing and prevent arbitrary sentences. It also seems to be a brilliant way of giving citizens a say in shaping the law.

Have a look: https://depravityscale.org/depscale/

 

[Nanfeishen]

Certain words create certain images and emotional responses.

The danger here is defining a set of words that can possibly instill and create a visceral response within the jury in describing the criminal act , rather than an intellectual response to the facts of the case.

 

[blunomore]

Certain words create certain images and emotional responses.

The danger here is defining a set of words that can possibly instill and create a visceral response within the jury in describing the criminal act , rather than an intellectual response to the facts of the case.

This does not have to do with attaching a definition to a word.

It will set down a standard by which to assess the intents, actions and attitudes associated with a given crime that distinguish it as worse than other crimes.

 

[noxibox]

Problem is the people setting the standard. There is no way for it to be objective. It will still be arbitrary, and although the idea would be that at least everyone would be subject to the same arbitrary assessment criteria the application of the criteria will of necessity contain subjectivity.

 

[blunomore]

Problem is the people setting the standard. There is no way for it to be objective. It will still be arbitrary, and although the idea would be that at least everyone would be subject to the same arbitrary assessment criteria the application of the criteria will of necessity contain subjectivity.

Is that not the case with any jury (other countries) or judge too?

I think we all understand that this is not an exact science. Sometimes injustices are even committed, e.g. someone being found guilty of a crime they did not commit.

This is, IMO, an attempt to get some standard to make the sentence fit the particular crime.

 

[murraybiscuit]

Problem is the people setting the standard. There is no way for it to be objective. It will still be arbitrary, and although the idea would be that at least everyone would be subject to the same arbitrary assessment criteria the application of the criteria will of necessity contain subjectivity.

isn't applied ethics in itself arbitrary?