An interesting article posed on the home page discusses the controversial subject of tagging a criminal with the label of EVIL. Isn't it amazing how much we want to find some external explanation for simple human responsibility for actions? Do you have a problem labeling a criminal as evil?

Since the term by itself doesn't describe anything, I don't know why we should have a problem with it. I would actually be more concerned with calling a person or an act "evil" if the jurors might disagree. For example, if I have shown a jury a remorseless child killing, what harm would come from my terming that an evil act? If I've shown that the defendant has committed multiple DWIs, I might risk appearing overzealous by calling him evil.

I have had many motions in limine filed in my cases in which defendants have demanded that I not use terms like evil, or murderer or rapist or whatever. My response has always been that if I have offered evidence to prove that a person is a murderer, then I should be allowed to argue that to a jury. I would assume that "evil" is just like other "name-calling" such as saying that the defendant is an "animal" or a "monster:" if your evidence supports the characterization, then the courts won't reverse you for it. See Davis v. State, 1998 WL 324724, at*2 (Tex.App.-Dallas June 22, 1998, no pet.)(prosecutor's reference to defendant as a "monster" in closing argument was a reasonable deduction); McKay v. State, 707 S.W.2d 23, 36 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (no error describing defendant as a "moral vacuum"); Burns v. State, 556 S.W.2d 270, 285 (Tex.Crim.App.1977) (evidence justified the reference when to defendant as an "animal"); Hernandez v. State, 791 S.W.2d 301, 307 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref'd) (prosecutor's reference to defendant as "scum and goat" not proper, but not reversible); Norwood v. State, 737 S.W.2d 71, 74 (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, pet. ref'd) (calling defendant "animal" was error, but not reversible).

And you don't have to show much to demonstrate that an act is "evil," since the term does not necessarily mean violent or subhuman like some other labels. Webster says "evil" means: morally reprehensible; arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct; causing discomfort or repulsion; or causing harm. Just about any felony offense and most misdemeanors would fall into this definition. If committing a crime is "bad conduct" then the act of committing a crime is, by Webster's definition, "evil." Psychiatrists may be concerned about imposing moral judgments on their scientific observations; immorality and crime are too closely linked to split that hair.

I think the label evil is appropriate. I don't like shying away from language just because the ACLU might get its secular feelings hurt.

"Sometimes evil is seen in the headlines, but most truly evil people go undetected and unrecognized - often passing as those we have mislabeled as mentally ill or ineffectual. Sometimes they are trusted helpers.
This book dares to call a spade a spade - some people are just plain evil. Despite psychiatry's attempt to turn human evil into a medical condition, evil still stands alone. It is not a manifestation of mental illness."

From the book Diagnosis Evil: Identifying Those With No Excuse by Richard K. Nongard, a licensed psychologist.

I would point out that even 30 years ago, one of the pre-eminent psychiatrists in American, Karl Menninger, wrote a book entitled "Whatever became of sin?" (New York, Hawthorne Books, 1973) in which he lambasted a social mentality which excuses irresponsible and/or criminal conduct in a cavalier fashion. To the contrary, I think we exculpate very few persons on grounds of "mental illness" -- look at the stats for NGRI's, less than 1/10th of 1 percent in Harris County.

flj

One of my semi-standard questions in capital voir dire is some variation on "Do you believe evil is a real force on Earth?" if a venireman begins to talk about "root causes" he does not need to cancel those cruise plans.