Apparently, Saturday Night Live did too, as they led off this weekend’s episode with a sketch in which this very question is asked.

Now, I am not claiming that George Zimmerman is a psychopath or has any other specific conscience-reducing disorder. I really have no ability to make a judgment on that. However, the conversation about his romantic situation did lead me to explain to my conversation partner that those that are psychopaths or do have certain related disorders are notorious for their ability to attract many romantic and sexual relationships. I mentioned some of the fascinating research, which I cover in my foundational page about psychopathy, about just how successful some of history’s most ruthless killers have been in spreading their genes.

Well, as so often happens after a deep discussion about an intriguing topic, it wasn’t more than a couple of days before a new, highly relevant story emerged in the news.

A 25-year-old woman named Star told Rolling Stone magazine that she plans to marry the now 79-year-old infamous mastermind of numerous murders, Charles Manson, who remains locked up in prison. Apparently, Star moved near the prison 6 years ago, when she was 19, so she could spend more time with Manson.

CNN also covered this story, interviewing the woman (who says her attraction to Manson was initially sparked by his environmentalism, not his crimes, which she only really became aware of later, but which did not dissuade her from her attraction.)

Now, Manson himself denies that they will be getting married. But the interesting thing is that, whether or not the marriage actually happens, a young woman would actually want people to believe it will.

What makes this story meaningful is that it is far from an isolated case. In his heyday, Manson was often surrounded by young women drawn to his charisma and aura. And he isn’t the only person associated with mass murder or serial killing to elicit such admiration. To offer just one more example among many, Ted Bundy was viewed as extremely charming and employed his skill for attracting young women in the course of carrying out his crimes.

This is an important topic. The ability of psychopaths and others with reduced conscience to attract mates has a number of implications and consequences:

1. It reinforces a sense of glamor about such individuals and their value systems.
2. It may increase their social standing.
3. It practically assists them in the commission of some of their crimes.
4. It leads to an increase in the proportion of their genes in the population’s overall gene pool.
5. It causes havoc for the partners and especially the children that must live with the consequences of these relationships.

I realize that there are men who are drawn to ruthless women and that is also an important topic to consider. But the Manson and Bundy examples – and, perhaps, to a lesser extent, the Zimmerman example – raise the question of why women are attracted to men of this kind.

Well, another coincidence that occurred in the wake of my conversation about this topic relates to that question. A few days after the discussion, through a completely different avenue, I ended up on the Wikipedia page for the topic hybristophilia.

Hybristophilia is described as:

“a paraphilia of the predatory type in which sexual arousal, facilitation, and attainment of orgasm are responsive to and contingent upon being with a partner known to have committed an outrage, cheating, lying, known infidelities or crime, such as rape, murder, or armed robbery.”

Apparently the term stems from the Greek word hybrizein, which means “to commit an outrage against someone” (and which, itself, stems from the word hubris) and philo meaning “having a strong affinity/preference for.”

The page even mentions the many female admirers that Bundy and Manson attracted as examples.

After reading that page, I was reminded of yet another relevant example.

As a result of running this website, I was recently sent a copy of the book Survived by One: The Life and Mind of a Family Mass Murderer, which is written, along with Robert Hanlon, a clinical neuropsychologist specialized in working with violent criminals, by a man named Tom Odle, who remains in an Illinois prison (after initially being placed on death row, before Illinois commuted all death sentences) for killing his entire immediate family – his parents and three siblings – in 1985. Odle has been diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder by one forensic psychiatrist and with Borderline Personality Disorder with Anti-social features by another.

At several points in the book, he describes how women have contacted him on death row and in prison, impressed and attracted by what he has done.

“People write me letters, especially girls and women wanting to be my friend and congratulating me on doing something that they had only thought about doing because they were mistreated and abused, also. There was also some kind of fan club for me…I liked the attention I was getting, and I even reconnected with an old friend I had a crush on for years. She wrote to me, so I wrote back, and we found each other in a new light.”

And later…

“I also responded to letters from girls who managed to find my address and wrote to tell me how cool they thought I was because I had murdered my parents. That was one thing I ate up at that time because it diminished my responsibility and guilt.”

Odle had women come visit him in person and begin relationships with him while he was on death row, as well. One of those relationships even led to a short-lived marriage.

So it was fascinating to learn that there is actually a term to describe this behavior – hybristophilia. And the Wikipedia page on that topic was also fascinating because it offers some theories about why such attractions occur.

Then, just this weekend, in the wake of the Manson girlfriend story, Yahoo featured a video by Discovery News about this very topic entitled “Why Psychopaths Turn Women On.” It even mentions the term hybristophilia and Bundy’s admirers, as well as those of other serial killers. It then speculates on some of the reasons behind this attraction or fetish.

Mate selection is a crucial driver of evolution. When a person selects another person as a mate, they are, in essence, voting for that person’s traits to become more prominent in humanity’s future. And they help make sure those traits do become more prominent in more than one way simultaneously.

Biologically, they help the person pass on their genes to their children. Developmentally, they ensure the existence of children shaped by parenting based in that person’s values – or by parental abuse or neglect as a consequence of those values. Socially, they may send a message that such traits are attractive, possibly influencing others to see an incentive in exhibiting them.

This is why, even though such relationships might seem like personal situations separate from our own lives, all of us should care when we see people with reduced empathy and conscience attracting mates. This phenomenon has, historically, had a surprisingly significant impact on the state of our world today. We must live in neighborhoods and communities with people deeply influenced by such relationships. And it may well be one of the mechanisms by which the health and sustainability of humanity continues to be threatened.

The post that I came across is entitled “I am angry!” and, in it, Linda expresses her despair about the state of the world and the futility of placing hope in and comforting ourselves with small daily pro-sustainability lifestyle changes in the face of destructiveness on such a massive scale. Like many who have wrestled with this viewpoint, Linda appears to have been influenced by Derrick Jensen, since the post features an image of the graphic novel he produced along with Stephanie McMillan, As the World Burns: 50 Simple Things You Can Do To Stay In Denial.

I was moved by what Linda was expressing in that post so I left a comment to share with her the idea that psychopathology may play a key role and to let her know about the field of ponerology, which has shed so much light on issues like this for me.

Linda responded right away with a comment that showed interest in those topics.

Then, a few weeks later, I got an email from Linda. She said my comment had thrown her off on a tangent looking into the ideas I had mentioned in the comment. She also said she was inspired to write an article about ponerology and how screening for psychopaths might improve workplaces, governments, the environment and the world at large. She wanted to interview me for this article.

A couple weeks after that I received a set of interview questions from Linda.

At that time, I was under the impression that Linda was writing an article for her blog that would just consist of the text of her questions and my responses. So I answered the questions at great length, thinking these would make up the bulk of her post. Only later, after I had responded, did I learn that she was actually writing a feature article for an Australian magazine called The Monthly, whose readers share an interest in law, politics and management.

Linda was then kind enough to share the early drafts of her article with me to get my feedback. As her editing process continued, though, it became clear to her that – perhaps because I had answered the questions having misunderstood their purpose or perhaps for other reasons – the information from the interview wasn’t well-suited to this particular article that she was writing, after all. However, since her questions had helped to surface some valuable information, we both agreed that it made sense for me to just post the interview, in its entirety, here on this blog.

As of this writing, Linda’s article is not yet published. If and when it is, I will link to it here.

So, without further adieu, here are Linda’s questions and my responses.

I’m not comfortable with the word ‘evil’.

Perhaps the deepest debate of all when it comes to the issue of “evil” – and you can tell that I agree that this is a debatable point by the fact that I, too, often put the word in quotes – is whether there is or is not any such thing objectively. People’s views fall all along the spectrum in regards to that question. At one extreme, we have some people who say there is no such thing as evil and, at the other extreme, we have those who are emphatic that evil exists and that denying it has terrible consequences (and that perhaps, in some cases, this denial itself even constitutes an evil act.)

I consider it one of the roles of ponerology to determine, to our best ability, whether there actually is any such objective thing as evil or there is simply “that which we often refer to as ‘evil.’” I am not sure if we will ever be able to resolve that question or not, but striving to do so is one of ponerology’s defining tasks and, even if ultimately unsuccessful, the process of striving itself can bring great insight.

Regardless of whether you choose to use the word “evil” or not, we can find common ground around the concepts of:

• Activity that is malicious and…
• Activity that is willfully negligent despite an apparent risk of unnecessary harm or suffering

With that being the case, those who take the stance that there is no actual evil, but simply “that which we often refer to as ‘evil,’” can still clearly see the importance and potential benefits of ponerologic study.

What is your definition of evil?

I don’t claim to have a scientifically supportable definition. Like I said, developing such an objectively-based definition for the word ‘evil’ – or concluding that there is no such supportable definition – is a task for ponerology. It may be one that we cannot succeed at for quite some time. And it may be that we never completely succeed at it.

In the meantime, I focus on these two main concepts.

• Malicious activity
• Willful negligence despite apparent risk of unnecessary harm or suffering

Whether you consider these activities evil or just think of the word ‘evil’ as a shorthand term that is often used to describe them and those who partake significantly in them, seeking to better understand them and their origins and devising optimal responses to their role in our world should keep us busy for quite some time.

Are psychopaths actually evil?

Without an objectively-supportable definition of the word ‘evil,’ this question cannot be answered precisely. However, what we can say with strong confidence is that psychopaths act maliciously and with potentially dangerous willful negligence quite frequently. Thus, they often pose a threat to those around them. Pragmatically, this is all we need to know to realize that the influence of psychopathy is an issue that deserves consideration. Philosophically, the debates about the semantic use of the word ‘evil’ and whether it applies to psychopaths – or anybody else – will carry on for some time.

Have you worked with psychopaths?

Given that psychopaths are estimated to make up 1% of the population – and, as suggested by some research, possibly even more in certain sectors of society such as on Wall Street – most people have probably worked with psychopaths at some point. However, it is not often that a psychopath will tell you that they are one (if they even know for sure themselves). In fact, they may spend much of their energy hiding that fact. So we usually will not know for sure whether someone is a psychopath or not. I’ve certainly worked with people who I would consider suspect. But definitively labeling someone a psychopath is not something that I would do without their having been tested by a qualified professional.

What methods are available that reliably diagnose psychopathy?

The best available method that I know of is the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R) test devised by Robert Hare. I’ve written about diagnosis of psychopathy here.

Do you know of any examples where organisations or businesses have screened for psychopathy?

I know of examples where researchers came in and screened this way. For instance, Robert Hare studied people in high level management positions at Fortune 100 companies to find out about psychopathy in that population. He describes that work himself in an interview in the movie I Am Fishead: Are Corporate Leaders Egotistical Psychopaths? As I detail in my review of the film, I’m not a huge fan of the second and third parts of the movie. But the first part is a great introduction to this material and includes this interview in which Hare describes his research. You can see the interview here. It runs from 22:00 (I’ve linked to this starting point) through 24:55.

Hare and colleague Paul Babiak have also written about this topic at length in their book, Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths go to Work.

However, I’m not aware of organizations or businesses having such specific screening for psychopathy done of their own accord as a matter of policy. If anyone does know of such cases, I would like to hear about them. Whether such screening should be done, and, if so, how to make sure that it is done fairly and responsibly, are certainly among the very most important and controversial questions considered within the realm of ponerology.

Do you believe labeling people as either normals or psychopaths, as  Andrew Lobaczewski does in Political Ponerology, might be counterproductive? While he does urge that we do not discriminate or persecute psychopaths, this could easily happen regardless (or am I just stuck in political correctness, perhaps the means justifies the end?)

Ponerology is, by definition, a scientific field. So, like all scientific fields, it is concerned with categorizing accurately. The evidence seems to increasingly reveal psychopathy to be a neurological condition that differs significantly from the norm in deeply meaningful ways with quite serious implications. It seems unreasonable to ask scientists to pretend it isn’t a real or substantially abnormal condition simply because some people might use this information in harmful ways.

All scientific knowledge has the potential to be used for harm rather than help. If we restrict scientists to only categorizing knowledge based on whether we think the categories will be used in healthy ways by the public, we will reduce science to a public relations battle. This seems more dangerous than the alternative. What is very important, however, is making sure that science – in this area and others – is being carried out in accordance with the rigors of the scientific method and not being manipulated for the benefit of those with self-serving or potentially harmful agendas.

There is one thing worth noting that makes this case somewhat special. Using – or manipulating – scientific knowledge in order to persecute a group of people is itself something most likely to be carried out, or at least led, by those with reduced levels of empathy and conscience. Becoming aware of those with conditions that significantly reduce empathy and conscience and informed regarding the tactics they use gives us a much better chance to protect people – even psychopaths themselves – from the type of persecution you fear. When people of conscience bond on the basis of a conscious appreciation for their strong conscience itself, recognizing that there is a segment of the population that does not – and may never – share this trait, they can more passionately and effectively work toward solutions that are, on balance, healthiest for everyone involved. So, in this sense, accurately categorizing on this particular dimension, as opposed to some less ethically-relevant dimensions, could actually help reduce, rather than increase, persecution throughout society.

The incidence of psychopaths in the workplace is becoming reasonably well understood, but do you believe  psychopaths in positions of authority are having an impact on our environment, and our subsequent attempt to address climate change and other environmental issues?

I cannot say for sure whether or not psychopathy is significantly and detrimentally influencing our efforts regarding a sustainably healthy ecosystem and environment. But, given what we know, it is reasonable enough to suspect this could be the case that the question deserves serious study. One of the main reasons that I am so passionate about advocating for the firm establishment of ponerology as a respected field of study is so that more people can access a platform and the necessary resources to do just such work.

One of the benefits I’ve experienced from researching and writing about ponerology is that, in the process, I’ve come across people and related fields that I had not previously known about doing work on issues like this one. For example, a few months ago I learned about the field of Green Criminology, which studies the role criminal behavior plays in the process of environmental damage. One of the benefits of running a website dedicated to these issues is that I can then share this information with others, as I did in this feature on Green Criminology that I posted soon after learning about it.

If so, how can we, armed with an understanding of ponerology, deal with psychopathic influences?

Psychopathic influences can occur at all levels and in all facets of human systems and, in each of these, pose different quandaries that both call for and challenge our responses. Just to give some examples:

• At the family level, psychopaths can be abusive or neglectful partners or parents. So recognizing psychopathy and how it works might lead someone to make a different choice about becoming involved or staying involved in a romantic relationship. If they choose to leave, it may inform how they do so in order to be as safe as possible. It may help them understand the trauma undergone by themselves and their children during the period of exposure to the psychopath and to seek the most effective counseling to help them recover.
• In the workplace, an understanding of psychopathy could inform wiser hiring and firing decisions and help in ensuring that roles involving important ethical decisions are filled by those with empathy and conscience.
• At the community level, understanding psychopathy could affect our approach to crime. We might see efforts to prevent or reduce crime in a different light when we realize that a certain percent of the population fundamentally lacks empathy and conscience.
• At the political level, we recognize that it is crucial that those who make decisions deeply affecting the lives of thousands or even millions of people be capable of empathizing with those over whom they exercise this power. But we can only work to ensure this is the case when we become informed about the range of levels of empathy that exist in different human beings.
• At the most basic level, the very existence of the field of ponerology can help provoke people to recognize that these challenges even exist. And, as that recognition grows, its findings can help us better strategize in the pursuit of optimal solutions.

Lobaczewski’s experience at the university – the new lecturer espoused views that appear to influence a formerly benign group. Are we ‘normals’ to a greater or lesser extent, vulnerable to their influence?

I think that, when uneducated about ponerologic issues, ‘normals’ are indeed vulnerable. The vulnerability stems from the fact that we tend to assume, on a very deep level, that other people are fundamentally like us. We realize that they differ in more superficial ways such as gender, skin color, ethnicity, talents and skills and so on. But we assume that they all share the most basic human traits and abilities such as the capacity to experience pain and pleasure, sleep and waking, heat and cold and so on. Experiences like these are so basic as to seem elemental to what it means to be human.

Along the same lines, we assume that the capacities to empathize with others and to experience pangs of conscience are also elemental to being human. Yet psychopaths, while often pretending to experience these, may not actually do so. And, at the same time, they realize that ‘normals’ around them are under the impression that they do. And this is the misinformation gap, the area of ignorance, that they are often able to exploit.

If so, how does a psychopath influence others to behave against their ethical beliefs?

There are a number of tactics that psychopaths use in manipulating others. Lobaczewski talks about and names several of them in his book Political Ponerology. Just a few examples:

• Paralogisms – Particular manners of twisting logic to falsely make the
  illogical appear logical and vice-versa
• Paramoralisms – Specific methods of twisting morality to falsely portray the unethical as ethical and vice-versa
• The appropriation and exploitation of ideology

You’ll notice two things that these tactics have in common:

• They all involve the manipulative use of language. Psychopaths are often very skilled at employing language in ways that mislead and fool people. This is why Lobaczewski proposes the study of what he calls “patho-semantics” to help us recognize how certain forms of communication are used for deceptive and malicious purposes.
• They all work best when the person using them is assumed to have working capacities for empathy and conscience. If we understood or even strongly suspected that this person lacked such capacities, we would be much more guarded against these tactics and skeptical of them. But when we believe they are a person of conscience like ourselves – and, in fact, as we believe in our ignorance, like every human being – we are much more likely to be taken in by their ruse.

Of course, when these tactics alone don’t work, many psychopaths, lacking a conscience to restrict them, are not averse to using explicit or implicit threats or even brute force to get their way.

If an organisation wanted to screen for psychopaths are there legal ramifications? What would they need to do?

As I alluded to earlier, screening for psychopathy – like any form of screening – raises serious concerns about issues ranging from privacy to unfair discrimination. So, if it is done, it needs to be done with care by highly responsible and competent people. I am not expert in exactly how the law applies here, since I’m not a lawyer, but I find it hard to believe that there wouldn’t very quickly be legal challenges as soon as anyone was refused a job or fired or forced to change positions as a result of being identified as a psychopath.

So I think it will be very important to involve legal experts, preferably with specialized training, ideally including education regarding ponerology itself, in developing any solutions in this area.

Having been interviewed numerous times myself I always wish they’d give me a completely open question. So here goes. What is the most important aspect of ponerology that you would like to share?

There are several important points I’d like to make that I don’t think have been raised in the rest of the interview.

1. Not all psychopaths are the same. Lobaczewski, in Political Ponerology, distinguishes several different types of psychopaths.
2. We have recently seen increased recognition regarding those who are not technically psychopaths, but share many of the same traits to a significant and troubling extent. These people are often referred to as “almost psychopaths.” Ronald Schouten, an M.D. and J.D. affiliated with Harvard Medical School, along with criminal defense attorney James Silver, has written a book about this subject called Almost a Psychopath: Do I (or Does Someone I Know) Have a Problem with Manipulation and Lack of Empathy? I covered this topic, a television news story about it and Schouten’s and Silver’s book on this blog post.
3. We have focused entirely on psychopathy here. But, as I emphasized in the title of one blog post, ponerology is not only about psychopathy.There are other conditions marked by significantly reduced levels of empathy and conscience that also play a role in the development of unhealthy systems. Lobaczewski’s name for a process by which human systems become pathological is ponerogenesis. And, in Political Ponerology, he goes into some detail about the various roles that his work revealed not only different types of psychopaths, but those with conditions besides psychopathy – as well as vulnerable normal people – to play in this process.

   I believe the other conditions most often involved are some of those that psychiatry has, for quite some time, classified as the Cluster B personality disorders, namely:

   • Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD)
   • Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)
   • Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD)
4. Finally, I just want to say that, like many fields of science, but perhaps to an even greater extent than most, ponerology attracts its share of pseudoscientists – people who either speculate in a non-scientific manner on the material within its purview or take scientific findings that it has revealed and then twist and misuse them to serve an agenda. Since ponerology is a relatively new and unknown field, many people, when first investigating it, may come across the pseudoscientists first, recognize their work as not credible and then dismiss ponerology as a whole. This is a shame because there are also many very credible scientists in a variety of related disciplines doing fantastic and responsible work on these issues.

   I hope that people will not let the fact that some misappropriate the name and ideas of ponerology keep them from putting in the effort to learn about the solid and important work being done in this area. I try to encourage this effort by documenting the growing body of such critical work at PonerologyNews.com.

One of the bonuses of running and promoting this site is that, in the course of doing so, a lot of relevant ideas and people come to my attention. And, once in a while, another whole field of study, related to ponerology, that also brings together many disparate threads, becomes known to me.

This happened recently.

Several weeks ago, I wrote about a study led by criminal justice professor Volkan Topalli. After publishing that piece, I found and followed Dr. Topalli on Twitter. Soon after that, Dr. Topalli retweeted a tweet by the criminology division of the publisher Routledge about a new book, the Routledge International Handbook of Green Criminology.

Green Criminology?

The term intrigued me and I was motivated to do a little more research on it. I’ll share with you some of what I found shortly. But first I’d like to provide some context regarding how this topic relates with the wide-ranging audience interested in ponerology.

I know that, among those drawn to ponerology by a desire to understand the roots of what they consider “evil” behavior, there are those of all political stripes holding every possible view on environmental issues.

There are those who believe that:

• Evil is embodied in corrupt corporations and their possibly pathological leaders who rape and pillage natural resources for profit without concern for sustainability
• Stronger government regulation is needed to restrain these out-of-control, environmentally-damaging companies

There are some who:

• Share concern about environmental sustainability
• Believe that governments, expressing themselves through directly destructive activity related to natural resources, crooked politically-motivated subsidies and establishment and enforcement of the very legal structures that prop up corrupt corporations in the first place, are the real seats of “evil” responsible for environmental damage
• Advocate for less government and a laissez-faire, free-market policy that maximizes privatization as the strategy most likely to move us toward sustainability

Others believe that

• We are in no actual danger of running up against natural resource limits or threatening environmental sustainability
• Those claiming we are in such danger are, in reality, either evil people promoting self-serving political agendas or hoaxes or alarmists scared into their views by them
• We should ignore these malicious or misguided voices and continue, unrestrained, an aggressive policy of industrialization without concern for limits

And there are many who hold some combination of these views on the subject or still other views entirely.

In my case, concern about ecological sustainability was very instrumental in propelling me along the path that brought me to ponerology. The work of Daniel Quinn and Derrick Jensen, in particular, influenced me to focus, at a relatively young age, on the damage engendered on many levels by a cultural mindset, sanctioning infinite growth in spite of finite natural resources, that has become the basis for our economic system and both shaped and been shaped by deeply unhealthy psychological attitudes and belief systems – and, quite possibly, by those with pathological conditions.

During the many years spent following up on the ideas Quinn and Jensen helped introduce to me, I explored, from every angle I could, the environmental debates and the many subjects they involve. Over time, I’ve come to a deeper understanding of people who approach environmentalism from a variety of different perspectives.

The epiphany that I experienced upon discovering ponerology sprung in part from the fact that it clarified a mindset regarding questions about the emergence of harm that were woven through myriad areas that concerned me and to which I was having great difficulty formulating an approach. It embodied the idea that our starting point should be to learn all that we can about the scientific facts relating to these questions. While conceding that we will never know everything we need to know to make perfect decisions, it argues that maximizing our systematic, objective knowledge will provide us the firmest basis on which to make them.

When I saw Topalli’s retweet about the Routledge International Handbook of Green Criminology, that term – green criminology – provoked in me another similar epiphany.

We may not, in the near future, all come to agree on either what is really happening environmentally or what we should do about it. But hopefully many of us can at least agree that we should establish, to the best of our ability, the facts regarding any egregiously reckless malicious or negligent behavior implicated in ecosystem damage and the people involved in it. Green criminology sounded to me like a field devoted to doing just that from a scientific perspective.

So I did some searching to learn about what green criminology is and what resources are available for people that want to know more or get involved.

One of the first resources I found is the GreenCriminology.org website. This site is run by the International Green Criminology Working Group (IGCWG), which is “a group of academic professionals, students, and others that practice Green Criminology and collaborate on projects and discussions” and was crowdfunded through a Kickstarter campaign that featured the video below.

• “What crimes or harms are inflicted on the environment, and how?”
• “Who commits crime against the environment, and why?”
• “Who suffers as a result of environmental damage, and how?”
• “What are the social, economic and political conditions that lead to environmental crimes?”
• “Which types of harms should be considered as ‘crimes’ and therefore within the remit of a green criminology?”

I then found that University of Colorado Denver, through their School of Public Affairs, supports a research working group on green criminology.

Of course, the Routledge International Handbook of Green Criminology, which was where I first came across the term, looks like a thorough overview of the subject.

And Amazon also features some other books when I do a search for "green criminology". Some of the ones that look interesting include:

It’s somewhat surprising to me that, despite all the investigation I’ve done of pathological conditions and environmental issues, as well as their overlap, I’d never even heard the term “green criminology” before.

Derrick Jensen has explicitly linked our culture’s high level of environmental damage to the influence of psychopathy and has written thousands and thousands of pages and done countless talks on these issues. Yet even in all of his work that I’ve read, seen and heard, I don’t recall him using the term “green criminology.”

I’m thankful that, through promoting this site, I came across people who were able to finally bring it to my attention.

I hope to have more experiences like that in the future. And I am looking forward to learning more about green criminology.

I realize that not everyone interested in ponerology will be similarly interested in this angle on it. Some may even disagree with green criminology’s basic premises for various reasons (though I think, if they take a closer look at some of the writing on GreenCriminology.org, they may find some of their concerns are addressed more openly than they would have expected). And that’s fine. The goal of this site is simply to bring information related to ponerology to people’s attention. From there, they can do with that information what they wish.

But I believe green criminology is a discipline that anyone who cares about ponerology should at least be aware of.  It shines a light on what has often been a blind spot in the consideration of evil. Those who commit “evil” in which the damage is externalized to the broader environment, even if it then indirectly harms a large number of people, have been able, relatively, to escape notice as compared with those who do damage directly to even a small number of others. A tighter integration with green criminology may help correct this imbalance within ponerology’s perspective.

At the same time, I think those interested in green criminology should be aware of ponerology because the information it helps reveal can potentially inspire a more profound level of understanding about why the harmful events that field studies come to pass.

It’s always exciting for me to see connections and relationships develop amongst people with overlapping interests of great depth that pertain to improving health and sustainability. I hope this article will help catalyze some new connections and relationships between the emerging green criminology and ponerology communities. Not everyone in those communities will see eye to eye on every topic. But, surely, there are many within them who will find common ground and can share with each other a good deal of meaningful dialogue and support.