So we all know that evil is the forbidden taboo of terminology within criminological theory, but why? Religious baggage aside, it is quite a wide term to use, but not necessarily illegitimate. If we take particularly violent or sadistic actions as an example, that cause incredible grevous harm against another person, is that not considered evil? As E. Gerrard puts it, dropping someone into an industrial shredder feet first, seems like a particularly malicious way of killing someone. So how do we explain harm for the sake of causing harm. Moral disengagement, neutralization, rational choice theory, a lot of theories try to explain why a person may be able to overcome the stigma of killing someone and allow them to kill, but what if they intended to kill simply for pleasure? Pleasures of killing are seen in many instances, Bourke covers the pleasures of killing in war and how many soldiers get a buzz out of killing people, be it with background influences or not. So can the term "evil" be placed upon certain crimes or actions? Can evil be a legitimate term that can be used to label actions?

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.