Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Becky Jungbauer | April 13th 2009 10:13 PM | 20 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More A Truth Universally Acknowledged articles

All

About Becky Jungbauer

A scientist and journalist by training, I enjoy all things science, especially science-related humor. My column title is a throwback to Jane Austen's famous first line in Pride and Prejudice


... Full Bio

I was inadvertently exposed to the filth and depravity of VH1's "Rock of Love Bus," also known as STDs on Wheels, when I turned on my TV to watch the (relatively) innocent and science-fueled Big Bang Theory.

If you feel like dropping 150 IQ points, here's the clip in all its intellectual and classy glory. If you don't have any neurons to spare, here's a quote that sums up the few minutes' worth of the show I saw (and that's all I ever want to see), as Bret Michaels expresses his heartfelt emotions with lyricism inspired by the deep wells of pure love: "You are this rocking hot centerfold, ok?"

I don't know about you but I need some Purell - and I eventually get to my point

After the two girls have their day at the spa, including waxing their mustache hair (no, I'm not kidding), they dressed for the elimination round. The "girl next door," as she's billed, says that she's given Bret the best glimpse of herself that she can. The best part is that she says this with a straight face while wearing what essentially looks like a garbage bag with a slit from neck to navel. That's more than a glimpse, honey.

Rock of Love winners? or losers?The "Penthouse Pet" and eventual winner's dress had to be made out of some NASA-created material, because I don't know how it defied gravity to hold all of that up.  Bret begins his monologue, describing her positive attributes, with poetry the likes of which Byron or Shelley could have only dreamed: "Obviously, having a hot body is awesome."


You know the saying: You can't get Evian by mixing these two...


After cleaning up the water I spilled after I laughed my head off at the ridiculousness of this farce, I started to wonder if there's a science to this depravity. Why are some people more attracted to this type of behavior, this lifestyle, than others? Perhaps I'm being more than a bit judgmental of these people. Can you measure depravity? Is there a "standard" or scale against which we can measure behavior? Are there societal standards for depravity?

The Depravity Scale

I wasn't allowed to watch TV growing up, with the exception of Sesame Street/Mr. Rogers when very young, and Where In the World Is Carmen Sandiego a few years later. So to me, all of this junk seems depraved.

To my surprise, when I typed "depravity scale" into Google, there actually is such a scale in existence! Created by Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist and chairman of the expert consultant/research group Forensic Panel, the Depravity Scale is "an international research effort that aims to scientifically standardize the definition of legal terms such as heinous, atrocious, evil, and depraved according to input from the general public."

The project has three phases (A, B and C), and the project's goal, according to the Web site, is to "establish a consistent and fair distinction for the worst of crimes, through the development of an instrument that will be used at the sentencing phase of trials." The site says that this is the first project ever developed that invites citizen input to shape a future scientific instrument for the courts and future criminal sentencing standards.

The description makes the point that the scale doesn't distinguish who is depraved, but rather what aspects of a given crime are considered depraved.

Depravity scale - WP photoIn Phase A (which is already complete), Dr. Welner randomly selected 100 appellate court decisions where findings of "heinous" or "depraved" were challenged and upheld, distilled the details into 15 common features, and constructed a hypothetical crime. Volunteers responded with hypothetical examples of intent, actions, and attitudes that would distinguish that crime as the "worst of the worst."

Phase B, currently ongoing, is "an internet-based survey designed to sample public attitudes about depravity, and to establish whether any of the items under study - 26 specific intents (the 15 items from Phase A plus an additional 11), actions, and attitudes - can achieve consensus as to whether or not the public considers it reflective of depravity." The survey asks participants to rate whether each item is especially, somewhat or not depraved. (To take the survey, which is confidential and secure, go here.)

Phase C, a second part of the internet survey, will determine the relative weight (importance) of the items by asking the public to compare them with one another. Participants are asked to rank five intents, actions and attitudes from Phase B at a time from least (1) to most depraved (5). The questions are randomly presented so each survey taker sees a unique order of items.

Conforming isn't all that bad sometimes


Welner says that interim data show 16 of the 26 items in Phase B have achieved over a 90 percent public consensus that they are either especially or somewhat representative of depravity, even controlling for differences in demographics, and over time. "So no matter our differences, we can all agree on certain elements of crimes that makes them depraved. This demonstration, that consensus can be achieved, is a landmark accomplishment."



Also of interest, Welner says in this article, are some of the interim demographic results:





  • The most important variable in how people differ in their perception of depravity is gender, and to a lesser degree, spirituality.
  • There is a statistically significant difference on all twenty-six items between male and female answers. Women evaluate each of the items as especially depraved, as opposed to men who would be consistently more likely to say something is not depraved. No other variable compares, although highly spiritual individuals are also more likely to appraise items as especially depraved.



  • Support or opposition to the death penalty has no bearing.
  • Prosecutors and defense attorneys had more in common with each other, in their perspectives on depravity, then either did with the general public.



  • While he saw consistency in rankings among American respondents, answers differed between American and British participants.



Although a sample n=2 isn't statistically worth the amount of makeup Bret Michaels wears on Rock of Love Bus III, I roped the poor guinea pig sitting next to me on the couch into an experiment for the sake of science. We each took the survey (before I read the article mentioned above, so I didn't know any of the interim results) and compared our thoughts afterward. The n=1 male definitely varied in his responses, while the n=1 female (that's me) evaluated almost every single item as especially depraved. Validation! While I was pleased that my gender was validated by the survey results, I was also surprised by our two outcomes, considering said male participant and I are in accord with most of our views on human behavior in crime. Perhaps we evaluate the intent differently, but end up at the same outcome - the deserved or undeserved punishment, as the case may be. Do the ends, then, justify the means?

For dessert: the not-so-subtle play on words

The cast of these VH1 shows have STD rap sheets longer than a giraffe's neck - how about a shot at chlamydia with Tila Tequlia? Or find love and gonorrhea with Tough Love (hosted by a mom/son duo from my current hometown). As for the RoLB III spin-off, Daisy of Love, check out this trailer. Your brain will be aflutter with neural connections not seen since the time of Einstein.

I brainstormed with the aforementioned n=1 male survey taker and came up with some great lists of modern depravity, so stay tuned.

Comments

To the author: I appreciate your summary of The Depravity Scale – research in which I have participated and have an interest as a member of the forensic behavioral science community. Respectfully, the developer of the research is Dr. Michael Welner (Forensic “Psychiatrist”). There are a few references to a Melner in the later half of your blog, which may be typos.

With respect to the research itself, I am interested to know what items of the depravity scale you identified in your current synthesis of the “Rock of Love” show. Having taken the surveys, how does the research in your opinion apply to the questionable behavior of participants in certain television shows? Embedding the depravity scale research in the assessment everyday outrageous behaviors has its relevance, particularly when the connection is clearly explained. I welcome further explanation and look forward to your list of modern depravity.

Becky Jungbauer's picture
Thanks for catching the spelling - my internet connection was glitchy at the time and I had to go back several times to fix things, so I don't doubt there were typos I missed!

As to your questions: I was discussing my revulsion toward the show and similar types of reality TV with my significant other, who had a different take. Since he and I have very similar views on certain topics, I was surprised that our opinions of the show and cast differed. I wondered, as I mention in the article, why some people consider action x depraved but others don't. And if people differ on their definition of depraved, is there a "common" definition or standard? Developed by whom, and for what purpose? That's when I checked Google and found the Depravity Scale, which is asking those same questions (albeit in a much different context).

My use of Rock of Love was in jest; a symbol of "moral bankruptcy," if you will (although again, who defines morality? Is there a standard?).

Yes, very interesting. I particularly like your reference to the television show because, like others similar to it, some people enjoy them and others find them morally reprehensible. Additionally, we each have our perspectives, proclivities and biases that ultimately impact our moral judgments. Naturally, problems arise when such preferences or biases cloud the decisions of those who are required to make objective judgments. This among other things seems to inspire the standardization sought by The Depravity Scale. Now if we could only use the scale to reach a consensus about what media programs are “depraved” or “atrocious” and thus warrant being kicked off the air… I would certainly turn on my television more often.

Well you have me intrigued, thus I patiently await more.

Becky Jungbauer's picture
Well said. Glad you enjoyed the article!

My responses to the Depravity Scale survey also followed suit with my female gender, assessing many of the items as especially depraved. I understand why I consider certain acts to be depraved, but I was wondering if your significant other offered any insight into why he didn't agree with you in finding particular acts to be depraved, or provided feedback on what was uniquely heinous about the acts he did find to be depraved. Dr. Welner's work on understanding and standardizing depravity is desperately needed to ensure fairness and equality in the legal system. But.as a side note, I think it's interesting to understand why people view certain crimes as depraved or not.

Becky Jungbauer's picture
I asked him this, actually, and he saw acts that were perpetrated on helpless/innocent, or acts that were particularly perverse, as depraved. He differentiated between a crime and a depraved act, whereas to me most were both. I wonder if it's capacity for empathy (not saying that men aren't empathetic, of course) versus sympathy - I put myself in the victim's shoes, whereas he saw it as an external observer. (The idea that women are more empathetic, whereas men are more sympathetic, is documented but controversial.)

I too took the depravity scale survey. I found myself cateogorizing items as more severly depraved if I was unaable to validate them in some way. For example there was an item that stated "a father kills his child" (forgive me if this is not verbatium I took the survey about 1 year ago). Now this item seems horrible but the thought occurred to me. What if the child had a terminal uncurable condition that lended to the considerable suffering of the child? How horrible is this now? As a father myself, to see my child in a suffering state and my being helpless to alieviated the suffering is an unthinkable thought. Would I go to the extreme? I can honestly say I don't know?

All of you had made very valid points about the depravity scale. To refer back to the comment made about the suffering of children, another item I recall in the depravity survey is causing a child to witness a violent crime. I remember choosing this item as especially depraved. I wonder if women are more empathetic than men when it comes to viewing crimes involving the suffering children as more depraved? With that being said, I also think that one should take into account that the public taking this survey all come from different backgrounds and have had different life experiences. For instance, a person that might have grown up around gangs and maybe were exposed to violence for a majority of their life may view the items in the depravity scale as less depraved compared to others who have not necessarily been exposed to as much violence in their life. I think it is important to acknowledge that our life experiences probably have a huge impact on the way that we answer the questions in the survey. CB

logicman's picture
I think that surveys such as this merely illustrate what linguists such as Ferdinand de Saussure have described.  The meaning attached to a word by an individual is a meld of family and cultural differences.  Every single individual will put alternates on a scale differently.  It is only by taking an extremely large sample across many cultural groups that you might derive any sort of 'average' favoured sequence.  That sequence is illustrative of the dynamics of living language, and has little, if anything, to say about the state of mind of any individual language user.

If a forensic psychiatrist wants to use such a scale in a court of law, or worse, to formulate law, then I hope that opponents can find an expert linguist to explain to the court or legislature just how unsafe it is to convict a person based on a jury's use of words, or to typecast a person psychologically based on ''abnormal' choice of words.  'Abnormal' is, and always will be, a subjective term, if only because about 99% of all words are used with a subjective layer of meaning.  For any word whatsoever, there is always going to be somebody who rates its users as mentally deficient.

btw, not wishing to drop 150 IQ points, I didn't watch the movie.  I have no desire whatsoever to be marked as having a negative IQ.  :)

Hank's picture
 For any word whatsoever, there is always going to be somebody who rates its users as mentally deficient.

I guess that guy doesn't like bloggers?  I wonder which site turned him down?

Becky Jungbauer's picture
I hope that opponents can find an expert linguist to explain to the court or legislature just how unsafe it is to convict a person based on a jury's use of words, or to typecast a person psychologically based on ''abnormal' choice of words

I think that would be the idea, or at least I'd hope so...as you said, a survey like this is trying to capture the "average" and not the individual, as the collective will likely vary among the individuals in the population (unless you have a homogenous population).

Patrick, why do you assume that a forensic psychologist only is available to the prosecution. Experts are retained by both sides. However, if I am assuming correctly, if Dr. Welner gets his plan off the ground it would entail legislatue passing laws to govern sentencing. There would be no need for any expert to testify pro or con on this issue. With that said I agree that the terms in question mean different things to different people. What is considered depraved in the bible belt may not be depraved in NYC or Detrioit. I believe the terms are subjective to local values and envirnoment and should stay that way. A uniformed system would only succeed in certain partsof the country making compromises on thieir values for the sake of national uniformity. Besides, I can not imagine judges not resisting giving up their sentencing powers without a fight.

Gerhard Adam's picture

I find it fascinating that someone would expend the effort to try and standardize the definitions of words in the legal system, when it seems that the focus should be on more nebulous concepts like justice?

This strikes me as just one more case of someone that thinks that human experience can be reduced to an engineering problem, where with a few definitions, and tweaks we can get standardized results.



Becky Jungbauer's picture
I thought it was fascinating too. When you say words in the legal system, do you mean words like legal vernacular, or do you mean words that can be used by a jury to evaluate a case? (I assume you mean the latter.) I definitely agree that the justice system should have a working definition of what justice is - otherwise how can you work toward protecting/serving citizens? I do think there is some value in defining, or at least shining a light on the difficulty of defining, certain concepts that a jury of peers is asked to consider when evaluating a person's guilt or innocence. If a concept can be interpreted on a continuum - if it isn't black and white - then I think it is useful to know what the spread is and where the "average" citizen falls on that spread. Otherwise we could think we disagree with another person but in actuality be on the same side.

But, as you say, and I agree with you, this could be another case of reducing the human experience, which can strip out the nuances and complexities underlying human behavior.

Gerhard Adam's picture

In part, what I find interesting is that we should care what something is called, instead of evaluating the act itself.  If someone is bludgeoned to death, does it really matter if it is "heinous", or "depraved"?  The act of bludgeoning kind of did it for me.

My concern regarding the language, is that the law has a tendency to become so technically precise that it may become absurd.  While it is certainly necessary to have precision in legal definitions, it should also be important that the "spirit" of the language be recognized.  Otherwise we end up with some of the absurdities we have where we KNOW something is wrong, but because of language in the legal system, it can't be addressed because it isn't TECHNICALLY wrong. 

I can also appreciate why certain legal technicalities exist (just as in science) where it is important to know what the source of information is, or how it was handled so that abuses can be avoided.  But too often, I find that the point is to make things more obscure rather than arrive at the truth.  In large part, this is due to our adverserial method of practicing law, which turns it into a contest between lawyers rather than a quest for the truth.


I think it is also this practice of trying to be technically precise which has lead to the situation of where "someone" must be responsible for an action.  Therefore we become litiginous if we can't find the immediate culprit, we dig farther and farther until we find someone in the chain that can now be held culpable for some downstream action. 


In general I have little respect for the legal system, but to address your point about a working definition of justice or in charging the jury ..... that's really my point.


That isn't the objective of the law (as it stands today).  These attempts at "clarity" are really about removing choice.  Judges are restricted from judging by "three strikes" laws or mandatory sentencing guidelines.  In general this seems like another attempt to create a definition and then try to fit every circumstance into it and remove the interpretetive choice of the jury.  A jury of peers, by definition, precludes standardization. 



Becky Jungbauer's picture

Ok, I see what you mean now. I was looking at it more from the idea that words are subjective and it would be helpful to have a standard scale against which you can compare (and not use as THE scale for justice, but as a general guide to help people who may be confsued), but I agree 100% that the razor thin technicalities that exonerate or incriminate people are ridiculous and are definitely abused. If clearly guilty criminals can get off on a technicality, what use is the justice system? And you're right, creating standards does remove some of the interpretive choice of the jury - but so does the jury selection process. I'm not sure what the best way is to allow for interpretation without flinging open the doors, or protecting the rights of the accused without constricting the practitioners.



Gerhard Adam's picture

That's what is so strange, since the jury technically has nothing to interpret.  Their findings are invariably guilty or not guilty.  Where is the need to interpret anything?

There is nothing that requires them to consider extenuating circumstances, or anything else since that is the role of the judgement (or punishment) phase.  This is why I questioned what the point of attaching terms like "heinous" or "depraved" was since the only point is to determine guilt or not.

But, in truth, the law is using such terms to determine whether or not death sentence issues should be involved, and trying to leverage the punishment side of the equation which is supposed to be the role the judges play.  This simply plays into the media hype around most cases.  Far worse than any word technicalities, are the propagandizing tactics of the media which invariably determine guilt or innocence long before a trial occurs.  I, for one, do not believe in the public's right to know anything that hasn't been determined yet and a court of law is the determining body.  The "right to know" something doesn't extend to gossip and unsubstantiated claims .... certainly not if we expect the legal system to have any meaning.

I find it ironic that more people are harmed by the media than by any actual punishment they may or may not receive.  In many cases, it is pointless to be found not-guilty, because the media/public have already passed their judgements and often ruin people's lives for no reason.

I want to see fewer definitions and more personal responsibilities in the judgements and choices we make.  It is simply too easy to hide behind the bureacratic machinery of the law instead of facing up to the choices one makes.  This is why I oppose giving the right to execute prisoners to the state. 



logicman's picture
Gerhard:  anything I might say in agreement with you was better expressed many years ago by an expert in such matters:
The law is
full of phraseology drawn from morals, and by the mere force of language
continually invites us to pass from one domain to the other without perceiving
it, as we are sure to do unless we have the boundary constantly before our
minds. The law talks about rights, and duties, and malice, and intent, and
negligence, and so forth, and nothing is easier, or, I may say, more common in
legal reasoning, than to take these words in their moral sense, at some state
of the argument, and so to drop into fallacy.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.  -  10 Harvard Law Review 457 (1897)


Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.