Just wondering

[Dai Bando]

I am in the last stages of a four year degree, I have put this short survey (9 questions)together as part of my dissertation. Wondered if any one has the time would you take a few minutes to complete it. Here is the link (its all anonymous).

Crime Survey


Sorry in advance if I shouldnt have posted a link on this forum.

[jimw1]

Interesting survey Dai Bando....I Completed it.....hope it helps

[batman]

Some good questions in that ... hope it all goes well.

[Moor Larkin]

I'd never heard of some of them.

[Dai Bando]

Been hoping to get 100, half way there atm. Thanks for your help, very much appreciated.

[GRAEME]

I'm sorry but I thought your questions were preposterous. Rate these people according to how evil they were?! What exactly are you doing a degree in - Tabloid Hackery?

This is clearly not serious social science.

[Dai Bando]

I'm sorry but I thought your questions were preposterous. Rate these people according to how evil they were?! What exactly are you doing a degree in - Tabloid Hackery?

This is clearly not serious social science.

Which questions do you consider preposterous?
All the people listed have been linked to notorious cases. How they are perceived by the public gives an indication of a number of things, thus the invitation to grade them. American forensic psychiatrist Micheal Stone features in a programme 'most evil' where he too grades criminals, do you consider this programme preposterous too.
If you objected to the questions why not ignore the thread instead of being so rude and mocking someones work.

[GRAEME]

American forensic psychiatrist Micheal Stone features in a programme 'most evil' where he too grades criminals, do you consider this programme preposterous too.

Er... yes. The show is sensationalist rubbish - and Stone's "Scale of Evil" is scientifically questionable, to say the least.

Evil is not really a quantifiable term. It is highly subjective.

If you objected to the questions why not ignore the thread instead of being so rude and mocking someones work.

I didn't mean to mock - not really - that's just my way. But surely if you are going to put this out there on a public board you have to be able to stand a bit of criticism.

It just didn't seem a very well thought out or robust piece of research - and of dubious sociological value. In my opinion. I'm sure others disagree.

Good luck to you with your study - perhaps you could learn to use an apostrophe some day.

[Kitty Whiskers]

I must agree with Graeme, I think grading by 'most evil' is a little off.

All of those people did dreadful things and to rate them by 'who's the worst' is an entirely subjective thing, open to all sorts of variables......and, I must say, feels just a tad disrespectful to the victims of those people. They all ended up murdered (often horribly) and I seriously doubt it would be of any comfort to their families to know they were murdered by the third most evil killer in British history. I also question what possible use a ranking of 'evil' is from a sociological perspective. Will it make any difference to laws in the future? Will it change public behaviour or perception?

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but if you want to put this out as a researched article, people will question the merit and validity of it (far more robustly than we gentle souls).

[batman]

I work in forensic psychiatry and the term 'evil' isn't used by clinicians like myself, but is often to be found in assessment documents compiled by non-clinicians to grade their own perceptions of how 'risky' an individual is. The public in general doesn't usually relate to terms such as 'risk facter levels' and 'high probablity, low risk' etc, so to use the term 'evil' in a survey to assess how the public perceives such people seems IMHO to be appropriate.

[Steve Crook]

Which questions do you consider preposterous?
All the people listed have been linked to notorious cases. How they are perceived by the public gives an indication of a number of things, thus the invitation to grade them. American forensic psychiatrist Micheal Stone features in a programme 'most evil' where he too grades criminals, do you consider this programme preposterous too.
If you objected to the questions why not ignore the thread instead of being so rude and mocking someones work.

Well apart from "all of them", the one asking about Myra Hindley is particularly preposterous.
"If Myra Hindley were still alive would you agree with her release."
What does that matter? Questions of the release of long term prisoners must be dealt with on a case by case basis. There are no general rules that can be applied to all of them. Asking if a dead woman should be released can't possibly have any sensible bearing on anything else.

I agree with other posters that the rating of people of an "evil" scale is also preposterous and distasteful. The concept of "evil" is a religious concept and will vary greatly with people's religious beliefs. Even rating these or other people on a scale according to the harm they did would be just as silly

Steve

[batman]

Even rating these or other people on a scale according to the harm they did would be just as silly.

It is not silly at all. In forensic psychiatry risk levels are assessed on exactly that criteria. Such assessments contribute to deciding what the actual risk posed by an individual are, the nature and degree of those risks, the possibility of those risks being repeated and consequently the levels of security the person needs. For example, is a person who trashes a bus stop while suffering a psychotic episode going to need a greater level of security than a person in the same condition who assaults a person? The obvious answer is 'no' ..... but the answer may, in fact, have to be 'yes'. The nature and degree of the incident (what they have done and why) will be a key factor is assessing which type of unit they will go to, or even if they actually need to be admitted.

[HUGHJAMPTON]

I work in forensic psychiatry and the term 'evil' isn't used by clinicians like myself, but is often to be found in assessment documents compiled by non-clinicians to grade their own perceptions of how 'risky' an individual is. The public in general doesn't usually relate to terms such as 'risk facter levels' and 'high probablity, low risk' etc, so to use the term 'evil' in a survey to assess how the public perceives such people seems IMHO to be appropriate.

I haven't partaken in the survey, just because I never do them, so sorry to the OP on that point.

I do agree with bats, statement that the use of the term evil is appropriate. With bat's involvement in forensic psychiatry, and treating such as an illness, he will probably be interested in the origins of the word "ill" itself.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...&searchmode=or

[Steve Crook]

It is not silly at all. In forensic psychiatry risk levels are assessed on exactly that criteria.

But I'm sure, or I hope, that nobody is just given a simple score of 1-5 based on how "evil" they are. An assessment of the harm they did would also be much more complex than a simple box ticking exercise. That's why I said it was silly. I wasn't talking about a proper assessment.

Steve

[jaycad]

well i 'took' the point of the questionnaire to determine what the participants opined to be the more severe of the crimes,the risk of further crimes after release/danger to the public,the difference in public feeling between male and female criminals and actual 'responsibility' for their crimes? surely the word 'evil' represented public feeling rather than villainy?

[Kitty Whiskers]

It is not silly at all. In forensic psychiatry risk levels are assessed on exactly that criteria. Such assessments contribute to deciding what the actual risk posed by an individual are, the nature and degree of those risks, the possibility of those risks being repeated and consequently the levels of security the person needs. For example, is a person who trashes a bus stop while suffering a psychotic episode going to need a greater level of security than a person in the same condition who assaults a person? The obvious answer is 'no' ..... but the answer may, in fact, have to be 'yes'. The nature and degree of the incident (what they have done and why) will be a key factor is assessing which type of unit they will go to, or even if they actually need to be admitted.

I understand what you're saying, Batman, but I don't think that's what the survey is looking at. It seems to ask which specific murderers are the worst, what crimes are the most heinous and how would you follow a sensational crime in the media. That's a little different to looking at how various behavioural criteria would be used for appropriate punishment for a crime.

[Steve Crook]

well i 'took' the point of the questionnaire to determine what the participants opined to be the more severe of the crimes,the risk of further crimes after release/danger to the public,the difference in public feeling between male and female criminals and actual 'responsibility' for their crimes? surely the word 'evil' represented public feeling rather than villainy?

So why didn't it ask some of that instead of couching it in simplistic but emotive terms like "evil"?

Steve

[Dai Bando]

well i 'took' the point of the questionnaire to determine what the participants opined to be the more severe of the crimes,the risk of further crimes after release/danger to the public,the difference in public feeling between male and female criminals and actual 'responsibility' for their crimes? surely the word 'evil' represented public feeling rather than villainy?

Thanks Jaycad that is exactly right, and the aim of the survey. The terminology was designed (and by someone far more knowledgeable than myself) to take into account that it needed to be understood by people of different age groups etc.
Sorry that it has caused such a stir, I was only asking for a bit of help from members.

[Mr Sloane]

Thanks Jaycad that is exactly right, and the aim of the survey. The terminology was designed (and by someone far more knowledgeable than myself) to take into account that it needed to be understood by people of different age groups etc.
Sorry that it has caused such a stir, I was only asking for a bit of help from members.

I looked at the survey but decided not to take part as I felt the survey was too simplistic, this may well of been it's attention but this is a complicated issue that had been brought down to the level of a Daily Mail editorial.

You have no need to apologies about causing a stir we can and do argue about anything and everything on here. In fact after starting an argument off topic as such you are now a fully paid up member

[jaycad]

So why didn't it ask some of that instead of couching it in simplistic but emotive terms like "evil"?

Steve

i thought the term 'evil' was used in the descriptive manner of a newspaper as part of the questionnaire related to press coverage,maybe dai bando was trying to keep things brief-if he had not used inverted commas then i'd agree with the criticism bud that's just my take.