The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines evil as ‘profound wickedness and depravity, especially when regarded as a supernatural force’ with the subsense of ‘something harmful or undesirable, e.g. social evils’. I give the definition because it is not in the book and ambiguity is a problem. Is that evil as in medieval, or merely undesirable? Are we dealing in hellfire and damnation, or suspension for breach of guidelines? The editors seem unconcerned with such distinctions, so dodgy business methods are thrown into the cauldron with homicide. Used in this way, as a generic term for things of which we disapprove, the concept of evil serves only to justify prejudice.

My interest in the topic began with removal from primary school after the head teachers's ‘touch of evil’ lecture on the essential similarity between staying out late and armed robbery. Heady stuff for 9-year-olds, but it was a faith school. The head would have loved this book; it finds evil in pharmaceutical marketing and in the killing of children. It is no surprise that religion claims to identify evil wherever it resides, but it is disappointing that the inquisitorial method goes unchallenged in a book that deals also with science – or ‘science’ as the authors have it, with those quotation marks summing up their approach. Foucault dominates the references.

Foucault's legacy is mixed. His big idea was the assault on professional power but, since attacks on doctors became a sport, he has lost the copyright. His other trademark is an impenetrable writing style. Several contributors perpetuate that legacy, without the excuse of writing in French. Parts of the book are incomprehensible or, worse, capable of sinister interpretation. When sex offender programmes are contrasted with the cynical comments of the recipients, it looks more like old-fashioned special hospital cynicism (‘motivational interviewing's too good for ‘em’) than radical critique. And surely therapy stands or falls by the outcome of clinical trials rather than salacious anecdotes? The gory stories titillate rather than illuminate, and it is profoundly depressing that one of the authors is a research nurse.

We should worry about the trend for forensic texts to include the e-word. It coincides with the growth of the fundamentalist right in the USA, and it reeks of punishment and stigma rather than treatment and rehabilitation. These are tough times for science and those who would discard it need something better than sociology and brimstone to put in its place.