Criminal logo

The Depravity Standard

Are all crimes the same?

By Rachel LynnPublished 3 years ago 7 min read
Like
The Depravity Standard
Photo by Matt Popovich on Unsplash

We've all seen those True Crime Documentaries on Netflix, or the Murder Mystery and Makeup videos on YouTube. I'm willing to bet you've seen at least one True Crime video in your life or read about a case and thought; "Man. That's messed up!"

It's a general, all around consensus; yes, murder is bad. It's messed up. But sometimes the way that someone falls victim to a murder is more messed up than others. Imagine someone getting murdered with a fast-acting poison versus someone dying from a slow-acting one. Why is one more horrid than the other? Why, and how do we separate what makes what murder worse than another?

Let's take a look at Game of Thrones.

Heads up: Spoilers ahead!

When King Joffrey was poisoned, his death was seriously sick. His eyes were all black and everything was bleeding. Gross. However gruesome his death, many people were glad to see him go. Take the person who murdered him, Olenna Tyrell. Her death was also by poison, but it was quieter, less painful, and barely treated with the same amount of glee that Joffrey's' death was. Why do you think that is?

King Joffrey's death was just gross. He was also pretty gross though, right?

Olenna Tyrell also died by poison, but somehow her death wasn't as bad.

Were the deaths treated differently because of who was dying? How about how they died?

Now, amazing TV shows aside (expect for that last season. Damn you, HBO!), a lot of the questions you've just read have real-world connotations, and real-world applications.

Yay! Learning!

In the United States (and other countries) there are sentencing codes that permit more serve penalties for what are considered more serve crimes. A good example of this is mitigating and aggravating factors.

Aggravating factors are any relevant circumstances, supported by the evidence presented during the trial, that makes the harshest penalty appropriate, in the judgment of the jurors or judge. This would include things like how old the victim was, or if the victims were especially vulnerable, if there was a firearm used, or the past criminal record of a defendant.

Mitigating factors are any evidence presented regarding the defendant's character or the circumstances of the crime, which would cause a juror or judge to vote for a lesser punishment. this includes things like if the defendant was under duress, if the defendant was a minor at the time of the crime, a lack of criminal history, or the defendant background, like if they grew up in a abusive home.

That's why you see drunk drivers, who were impaired at the time an accident that caused death, end up getting an average of 10 years in prison, while people who are charged with first degree murder serve an average of 17.3 years in prison. Of course, the sentences depend on circumstances. How young was the person murdered? How violent would we consider the death to be?

The problem is, there is no standard definition for crimes that are considered 'atrocious", "depraved", "heinous", or "horrible", despite the fact that these words are already used in courts. That's why we see people like Brock Turner, the 20-year-old Stanford swimmer who was convicted of three counts of felony sexual assault and found himself facing up to ten years in prison after he was discovered assaulting an unconscious and intoxicated woman behind a dumpster, was sentenced to just six months in jail and only served three.

2015 mugshot. Friendly reminder that Brock Turner is a rapist.

The judge on the case, Aaron Persky, was faced with the prosecutor asking for six years in prison. However, Judge Persky sentenced Turner to probation and county jail time, citing Turner’s lack of criminal history, the showing of remorse, and the alcohol involved, which he claimed impaired Turner’s judgment.

“I think you have to take the whole picture in terms of what impact imprisonment has on a specific individual’s life,” the judge said. “And the impact statements that have been — or the, really, character letters that have been submitted, do show a huge collateral consequence for Mr. Turner based on the conviction.”

So why, you may be asking, that a man who was convicted of assaulting an unconscious and intoxicated woman behind a dumpster sentenced to just six months (a sentence that was later halved under the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 due to good behavior).

I would argue that partly it's due to a lack of that standard definition of what makes something 'horrible'. Any sane, empathic human would consider the crime that Turner committed as horrible, but Judge Persky has his own opinions on that case, and his own opinions and lack of a sentencing guideline permitted what many would consider an unjust sentence to occur.

This brings your humble writer to the topic of this wonderful little piece, The Depravity Standard. What is it, and what can you do to make sure a sentence like Turner's never occurs again?

Oh, and in case you're wondering, Persky was the subject of an investigation due to his ruling on the Turner case and was later recalled by voters during the 2018 California primary elections. He is the first California judge to be recalled since 1932.

What is the Depravity Standard?

Simply put, the Depravity Standard is multi-layered research effort that tries to standardize just what exactly "depravity" is. It was developed by forensic psychiatrist Dr. Michael Welner, chairman of The Forensic Panel. The Depravity Standard is a multi-item, multi-use measure designed to be used by judges, police officers, jurors, lawyers, and even correctional officials in order to more fairly and consistently distinguish what crimes deserve greater accountability.

What is the Depravity Standards' goal?

The goal of the Depravity Standard is to minimize the arbitrariness of how courts determine what crimes are the worst crimes, and to eliminate bias in sentencing. A key factor of the Depravity Standard is that it is race, gender, and socioeconomic blind, thus leading to enhanced fairness in sentencing.

What exactly does it do?

The Depravity Standard is a research project. It collects data in order to establish societal standards about what exactly makes a crime depraved. It attempts to create an instrument that can be used to inform on a crimes' specific qualities; like intent, victimology, action, and attitudes. The absence of those reflects on a crime for its lack of depravity relative to identically charged cases. This means that there would a general consensus on what crimes are depraved and what makes a crime so bad. It'd be a bit like checking of boxes on a list.

A key point to note here is that the instrument which the standard creates is not to distinguish who is depraved, but what is depraved. It also can be used to measure the degree of depravity in a crime.

What can you do?

Although originally dreamt up based on higher court decisions (upholding what courts see as "vile", "heinous", or "depraved", the Depravity Standard Research involves in the general public through web-based surveys. That's right, intern surveys. By taking the results from the surveys, research is generated from the data to refine social standards. You can contribute to the develop of the Depravity Standard!

How to do it

You can go to www.depravitystandard.org an take a 30-minute survey. The data from the survey will fashion the Depravity Standard, and thus a literal standard to be used in sentencing cases like Brock Turner's.

The survey is a bit at times, but the data that it gathers is invaluable. And if you're True Crime fan like me who watches a video and thinks about how horrible the crime (or the sentence!) is, I'd recommend checking it out. University professors and criminal justice students alike are involved in the recommendation for the Depravity Standard in hopes of making sure that people who commit heinous crimes are punished properly and within the confines of the legal system, not just for the benefit of the victims and their families, but for the future benefits of everyone.

If they can have a say, why not you?

guilty
Like

About the Creator

Rachel Lynn

Graduate student. Forensic Anthropologist. Opera fan. Sewer rat in a human costume, full time idiot.

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.