If anyone is interested in participating in this international redefination of prison sentences please visit:

http://depravityscale.org

We all have differing opinion on what makes a crime more evil than another and this survey is going to be used to set a standard in sentencing for peoples who commit such crimes. Please, if you are interested in making your voice heard participate in this survey. I think it's even more important than voting.

What is the Depravity Scale Research?

Judges and juries both across the United States and in other countries who decide that a crime is "depraved," "heinous," or "horrible" can assign more severe sentences. Yet there is no standardized definition for such dramatic words that courts already use. And while we may all recognize that some crimes truly separate themselves from others, there is no standard, fair way to distinguish crimes that are the worst of the worst, or "evil."

To minimize the arbitrariness of how courts determine the worst of crimes, and to eliminate bias in sentencing, the Depravity Scale research aims to establish societal standards of what makes a crime depraved, and to develop a standardized instrument based on specific characteristics of a crime that must be proven in order to merit more severe sentences.

This research will refine into the Depravity Standard, an objective measure based on forensic evidence. This instrument distinguishes not who is depraved but rather, what aspects of a given crime are depraved and the degree of a specific crime's depravity. The research will enhance fairness in sentencing, given that it is race, gender and socio-economic blind.

The research has already been guided by legal and scientific study. Now, a two-part survey has been developed to involve the general public in establishing societal standards of what makes a crime depraved. The first part enables the general public to shape the specific intents, actions, and attitudes that should be included as items of the Depravity Standard instrument, and the second involves the general public in refining the relative weight of these items. In both surveys, all members of the general public are urged to participate. This is the first project ever developed that invites citizens' direct input to forensic science research, and the first project ever developed in which citizens shape future criminal sentencing standards.

Your perspectives on depraved crime should be included in the Depravity Standard. Therefore, we ask that you participate in this landmark project. Thank you for your interest.

I'm not so sure they want me to voice my opinion about sentencing.

Thanks, Kees. I think I will take a stab at it. I've always wanted to set the standard for depravity.

Wait... no.... That didn't sound right.

Thanks Teresa.

It is my hope that everyone here takes part in this survey; it is the only time John Q. Public will have an opportunity to weigh in on such an important matter. Setting new standards for truth in sentencing is something everyone seems to talk about and now you can have a chance to help form new standards for what constitutes evil to beyond evil.

Since this is not to establish a death penalty it shouldn't offend anyone.

I think I'm being too nit picky, but I'm having a problem with ...

ITEM 2 - Intent to maximize damage or destruction, by numbers or amount.

Examples:

1. Bombing a crowded building at the height of the work day, in order to cause the greatest number of casualties.
2. Placement of a computer virus designed to cause maximal computer hard drive destruction in transmission.
3. Fraud for the purpose of not mere greed, but to erase a victim's financial foundation.
4. Bombs created with nails to maximize damage shrapnel.
5. Biological terrorism.

I don't know if I can rate "Placement of a computer virus designed to cause maximal computer hard drive destruction in transmission" as equally depraved as, say, "Bombing a crowded building at the height of the work day, in order to cause the greatest number of casualties."

I realize these are just examples for the concept "Intent to maximize damage or destruction, by numbers or amount" ... but it's almost like voting on a ballot proposition with a hidden agenda. I'm conflicted ... must process information ... please help ...

Well I have to admit causing hard drive destruction as opposed to bombing a building and causing multiple human casualities shouldn't really be in the same category. It's actually kind of sad to think that human life and a computer are considered on an equal playing field.

The way I interpreted the computer virus, and others may see it differently, was to think about a large business with offices world wide all dependent upon one computer which if destroyed would shut down multiple businesses causing people to be unable to continue work, earn a living....say it was Microsoft, it would shut down home and business computers on such a large scale as to effectively make all computers hooked up to that system unusable.

Thansk Kees...just finished the survey...I am glad to put my opinion out there to enhance our system of justice.

I agree that the depravity scale seems less about sentencing and more about classification. I have worked around the legal system for some time and do agree that the way in which juries decide what is and is not deserving of the death penalty or what constitutes a more heinous crime than another is quite arbitrary. As a result I am impressed with the research and what it is trying to accomplish. I would encourage anyone who cares anything about this topic or law/crime/legal system to participate. While it’s not about sentencing per se, the Depravity Standard is quite relevant to societal concerns about the justice system today.

I've decided that new prison sentences should start... "The new prison is being built at ..."

Do you think they should set a different standard for Cavemen/Americans, I mean, well...er, your genes do go way back to....say, are you a card holding member of the "Club Carrying Club"....

I think that Caveman/Americans should have "Right of Troglodyte," which is kind of like right of clergy, except that instead of getting off scot-free by proving that we can read, we get off scot-free by proving that we have hairy chests and can say "Oooogh.HMPH."

Or maybe by proving that we can't read... :hm: