A PBS documentary asking whether evil is actually illness has reignited one of the oldest debates in human history, and the answer is far more complicated than either side wants to admit.
Story Snapshot
- PBS aired a four-part series called “Mysteries of Mental Illness” in June 2021, with Episode 1 directly asking whether “evil” behavior is really a mental illness.
- The series was inspired by Columbia University psychiatry chairman Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman and aims to reduce the stigma around mental illness.
- Research shows the medical model of mental illness does not always reduce stigma, and in some cases makes people treat sufferers more harshly.
- Courts and legal systems continue to hold people morally responsible for violent acts, even when mental illness diagnoses are present.
The Question That Has Haunted Courts, Clergy, and Clinics for Centuries
When someone commits an act of horrific violence, the first question people ask is not “what went wrong in their brain?” It is “how could anyone do that?” That gut reaction points to a moral judgment, not a medical one. PBS decided to take that question seriously in 2021 with “Mysteries of Mental Illness,” a four-part documentary series that puts the tension front and center right in its first episode title: Evil or Illness.
The series had a clear goal. According to reporting from the time of its premiere, the show was built around destigmatizing mental illness. That is a worthy aim. But framing the whole project around that goal raises a fair question: does the series follow the evidence, or does it lead with its conclusion? That distinction matters a great deal when the topic is this serious.
When the Medical Label Does Not Help the Patient
Here is where things get genuinely surprising. You might assume that calling a behavior a symptom of illness, rather than a moral failure, would make people more sympathetic. Research suggests otherwise. A study by Mehta and Farina found that people actually treated individuals with disease-based diagnoses more harshly than those given social or psychological explanations for their behavior. Calling someone “mentally ill” does not automatically make the world kinder to them. Sometimes it does the opposite.
Psychologist Peter Kinderman has argued that programs on major broadcasters often take for granted that mental health problems are biological illnesses, without giving fair time to other explanations. His concern is that the “illness like any other” message, while well-intentioned, can push people toward hopelessness and actually increase prejudice. That is a serious charge, and it deserves more than a dismissal.
Antisocial Personality Disorder Shows How Messy This Gets
Antisocial personality disorder is defined by a pattern of exploitative, guiltless, and socially destructive behavior. It covers people who manipulate others, break laws repeatedly, and feel no remorse. Clinically, it is a recognized diagnosis. But the Harvard Law Review has noted that the diagnosis lacks real clinical utility, functions as a barrier to treatment, and triggers legal prejudice against defendants who carry the label. So the diagnosis neither helps the person get better nor helps the court treat them fairly. That is a problem on both sides of the evil-or-illness divide.
Courts have wrestled with this for decades. High-profile killers have received psychiatric diagnoses, and juries have still voted to convict and sentence them to the maximum. The legal system is built on the idea of moral agency, the belief that people choose their actions and can be held responsible for them. Medicine does not always fit neatly inside that framework, and no documentary, however well-produced, has resolved that tension yet.
The Conflict of Interest Question Is Worth Asking
Dr. Lieberman’s role in the series deserves a closer look. He served as series advisor, was featured throughout the episodes, and the series was inspired by his own book. That is a closed loop. The man whose ideas shaped the series also appears in it to explain those ideas. That does not make the documentary wrong, but it does mean viewers should watch with their critical thinking switched on. Good journalism and good documentary filmmaking require independent voices, not just institutional ones.
Both Sides Are Asking the Right Question, Just Not Answering It
The honest answer to “evil or illness” is that these categories are not always opposites. A person can have a diagnosable condition and still make choices. A person can act with cruelty and calculation while also carrying real psychological damage. The medical model offers tools for understanding behavior. It does not, by itself, erase moral responsibility. What the PBS series gets right is that the conversation is worth having. What critics get right is that the conversation needs more than one voice at the table. The question is old. The debate is not going away. And that is exactly why it keeps showing up on television.
Sources:
youtube.com, pbs.org, yahoo.com
