By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm:
![Photo[1]](https://i0.wp.com/yourtrialmessage.com/wp-content/uploads/6a01156e439be2970c019b00e588b2970b.jpg/?ssl=1 "Photo[1]")
On a flight this past Saturday, I overheard my flight attendant and another passenger discussing that day’s verdict in the trial of Martin MacNeill, the Utah doctor convicted of first degree murder for drugging and drowning his wife in a bathtub more than six years ago. “I think the jury did the right thing,” the passenger said looking at the doctor’s photo in a People magazine. “He has the look of evil.” Even when it isn’t articulated in such a direct manner, the determination of whether a party is evil or not can be a powerful background consideration that jurors bring to the task of evaluation: Was a criminal defendant evil or did they make a terrible mistake? Was the corporation’s cover-up motivated by evil or incompetence? Is the Plaintiff engaged in an evil plot to extort money, or is she genuinely injured?
The concept of evil has been with us probably as long as humans have contemplated morality. Whether it is dressed up as the Judeo-Christian Devil with red skin and horns or left as the more general notion of sinister purpose, the concept of evil resonates in our language and plays a role in many to most of our stories. The actual nature of evil is often vague or left in the hands of theologists. A recent Scientific American article introduced me to a new social-psychological concept, and as a bonus, it is one of the few such concepts that could also serve as the name for a heavy metal band: Belief in Pure Evil, or BPE for short. The concept and an accompanying scale are covered in a new research article (Webster & Saucier, 2013) outlining the personality features that are more likely to accompany this deep-seated belief. Those who believe in pure evil, it turns out, are more punitive in orientation: They support the death penalty and preemptive military strikes, while opposing criminal rehabilitation, prosocial racial policies, as well as beneficial social programs. Generally, those high in BPE see the world as a harsh and hostile place, and believe tough measures are generally the best response. This post takes a look at how the nature of this belief might influence your evaluation of jurors, as well as jurors’ evaluation of your case story.
Belief in Pure Evil: The Research
Belief in pure evil is common in our culture. For example, 70 percent believe in the existence of the devil, based on a 2007 Gallup poll, and that number has increased since 2000. Extending that notion beyond Beelzebub and into the human world, social scientists have also shown that many people believe that human acts, and the humans themselves, can also be infused with pure evil. A core feature of BPE specifically is the that evil is immutable: People are born that way and cannot be rehabilitated or changed. A second prong is that the best defense against evil is to eliminate evil people. That has clear implications for the justice system, most obviously on the criminal side, but extending into civil matters as well.
On the one hand, potential jurors could arrive at the courthouse with a belief that ordinary people can sometimes be led into horrible acts. That is a view substantiated by the post WWII focus on what Hannah Arendt called the Banality of Evil, as well as research like Milgram’s famous obedience study or Zimbardo’s famous prisoner study. On the other hand, some would see evil as something different – as a pure form that attaches intrinsically to the person or organization and not just to the act. This tendency to view evil either as a changeable state or an inherent trait can have a strong influence on the way jurors process the alleged bad acts that lie at the core of a criminal or a civil case.
Interest in the concept of a belief in pure evil has been growing, with the recent development of a scale to measure that attitude. The final step of validating that scale has occurred just this past year (Webster & Saucier, 2013). In addition to providing a reliable measure for BPE, researchers (Burris & Rempel 2011) have also found that it is somewhat malleable, making it possible to prime individuals for a lesser or greater BPE. The relevance to litigators is not only that high BPE individuals are more likely to support capital punishment and oppose criminal rehabilitation, but also that the belief correlates with generally greater punitiveness in a variety of settings. In that way, the measure is similar to some other social science concepts, like authoritarianism and conservatism. At the same time, researchers have also shown that BPE is distinct from those similar attitudes (Campbell & Vollhardt, 2013), reflecting a coherent and independent set of beliefs.
Measuring Belief in Pure Evil in Potential Jurors
The 22-item BPE scale itself is available online from one researcher’s dissertation (Webster, 2012), appearing on page 23. In general, psychological scales can be a challenge to use in supplemental juror questionnaires due to suspicion from opposing counsel or judges. Personally, I believe that the fact these are validated psychological scale questions focusing on a deep attitude that is highly relevant to the evaluation called for in many trials, should serve as an excellent counter to any objection. However, this scale in particular will be more of a challenge, since every question uses the word “evil” and will realistically invite your judge or adversary to respond that “This is about law, not evil.”
In situations where you do have the open-minded judge and are able to defend the use of at least some of the scale questions, it could prove useful. Litigators might also adapt some of the language, for example asking for agreement or disagreement with the notions that “Some people harm others for the joy of it,” or “Some people are compelled to harm others.” In the absence of direct use of scale questions, a close second may also be to reasonably infer based on other closely related factors such as political orientation or authoritarianism.
Inviting or Disputing Attributions of Evil in Characterization of Parties
Aside from using BPE as a jury selection tool, the concept could also find its way into your case story. Nearly every good tale has a villain, so a strong or weak version of evil is likely to play at least some role in many trial stories. Counsel cannot make it too overt of course (No, don’t point at your adverse party and shout, “He is EVIL!”), but aspects of evil intent or evil character might still make their way into jurors’ thinking. Whether you are trying to suggest that characterization or trying to avoid it, the list of factors that make up the research definition of BPE can serve as a useful checklist.
The BPE scale is based on eight factors drawn from earlier research (Baumeister, 1999):
1. Pure Evil Involves the Intentional Infliction of Harm.
As we’ve written recently, intentions matter as much as impacts, so those wanting to attribute evil will focus on motives and those wanting to escape it will focus on circumstances.
2. The Evildoer is Driven Primarily By a Wish to Inflict Harm.
Beyond simple intent, we want to believe those who do evil do so due to the joy of inflicting harm, or perhaps due to some other base motivator, like profit or spite.
3. The Victim of Pure Evil is Innocent and Good.
In this black/white universe, the wrongdoer is all-bad and the victim is all-good. Anything that undercuts this notion of an unspotted victim, even if it doesn’t lead all the way to comparative fault, can still remove the frame of good versus evil.
4. Evil Represents the Antithesis of Order, Peace, and Stability.
Evil stems from chaos, while what is orderly and calm is good. Those wanting to paint a picture of evil would emphasize factors that are loosened and out of control.
5. Pure Evil Comes from the Outside.
At a very basic level, evil means “other.” Emphasizing shared connections — group, history, language, and experience — all undercuts our ability to see evil.
6. Pure Evil is Stable in the Person.
Evil is marked by what it is and not just by what it does. When supporting that inference, emphasize enduring traits and motives, rather than momentary choices.
7. Pure Evil is Marked by Egotism.
Pride, self-interest, and even narcissism are all traits we are more likely to associate with evil. So when building a more positive image, point to connections and interests that extend beyond the individual.
8. Pure Evil is Associated with Difficulty in Maintaining Control Over Emotions.
Anger, outrage, and other forms of unchecked emotional turbulence can be viewed as signs of a chaotic nature more prone to evil. When a party loses control, on the witness stand or in the story, that can help buttress a sinister impression.
Now, a checklist like this could be taken too literally, and I am not suggesting that litigators use it to say, “They’re evil and let me count the ways.” But the research suggests that the more these eight factors are emphasized in a trial story, the more the story’s villain is apt to be seen as evil and not just misguided. Ultimately, the jury is supposed to be applying the law and not judging the character. But at the same time, we know from both experience and research that jurors’ thinking is infused with morality, and there is no morality more basic than the battle of good versus evil.
______
Other Posts on Core Attitudes:
- Prime Your Jury for Moral Judgment
- Account for Mortal Thoughts After a Tragedy
- Be Relatively Cautious With Absolutist Jurors
- Spot the Jurors Who Feel Entitled to Award Higher Damages
______
Baumeister, R.F. (1999). Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty. Henry Holdt and Co.: New York
Burris, C. T., & Rempel, J. K. (2011). “Just Look at Him”: Punitive Responses Cued by “Evil” Symbols. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33(1), 69-80.
Campbell, M., & Vollhardt, J. R. (2013). Fighting the Good Fight The Relationship Between Belief in Evil and Support for Violent Policies. Personality and social psychology bulletin.
Webster, R. J., & Saucier, D. A. (2013). Angels and Demons Are Among Us Assessing Individual Differences in Belief in Pure Evil and Belief in Pure Good.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(11), 1455-1470.
Webster, R. J. (2012). Angels and demons are still among us: further validation of the belief in pure evil and belief in pure good scales. Dissertation, Kansas State University.
Photo credit: Taken by the author, Devil Duck is on loan from the Collection of Sadie Broda Bahm