Psychopathy is a phenomenon that reflects rebellious behavior in which people can commit crimes. Personalities with such disabilities are mentally ill and can pose a danger to society. The connection with criminal justice is controversial since not all people suffering from signs of illness are criminals. On the one hand, Robert Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) was conducted mainly on already convicted criminals; hence, the method was recognized as valid (de Oliveira-Souza et al., 2008, p. 430). On the other hand, studies have shown that psychopaths commit about 50% of all violent crimes, and one in four in prison belongs to this category (Fox et al., 2015, p. 5). After the death penalty was abolished, the defense became less likely to use insanity in their arguments, since by law, crazy people are placed in a clinic, where they are treated just like criminals (Mackay, 1991, p. 87). The American judicial system strives for maximum fairness; therefore, it is essential to consider all the faults when sentencing. Modern research has improved the Western criminal justice system since it has become easier to diagnose probable criminals by emotional, interpersonal, lifestyle-related, and antisocial signs.
Psychopaths entirely lack feelings of remorse and guilt, and this is the most characteristic emotional sign. Every healthy person experiences a list of emotions; they regret something or may feel awkward. At the same time, most murderers do not undergo any feelings when committing severe crimes. According to Hare (2016, p. 27), criminals suffering from psychopathy have a greater tendency to violence, including sexual violence, than people with other diseases. Furthermore, psychopathic sex offenders are more opportunistic and exhibit higher levels of sexual arousal than non-psychopaths (Zinger & Forth, 1998, p. 240). These people do not take responsibility for their actions because they do not realize their severity. Moreover, the lack of emotions is expressed in domestic violence, where criminals can torment their families. Most often, these people are moral abusers who use a rigid and exploitative style of interpersonal communication. Another point is the prevalence of the disease among adolescents, which complicates criminal prosecution (Gretton et al., 2001, p. 445). Psychopaths do not have a sense of regret that should stop the desire to harm another.
The main interpersonal sign of psychopathy is a pathological lie to achieve goals. These people are skilled manipulators who can wear a mask for a long time and rub themselves into trust. This criterion may be shown by the subject of domestic violence. At first, a person seems ideal and behaves as an excellent example of their culture. Then, when they seek their partner’s favor, they begin to show aggression and a dictatorial tone in communication. After undergoing treatment, a person usually no longer commits such crimes. In other words, touching on the topic of criminal justice, the risk of recidivism is minimal, which plays a role in sentencing (Olver et al., 2013, p. 171). In a more dangerous manifestation, such people can work in state organizations. It allows psychopaths to reach high positions and become politicians or officials. They also have a desire for power, which is one of the signs of the disease. The refutation of this idea can be an existing control of the persons admitted to the management. However, nowadays, no method or device gives a one hundred percent guarantee of honesty, adequacy, and good intentions.
A person’s lifestyle is the third criterion that must be evaluated when considering the disease of psychopathy. A common characteristic feature is a parasitic behavior model, which implies using other people’s resources. In the case of domestic violence, a person can assert themself at the expense of a partner, thereby increasing their self-esteem. If the victim is ready to do anything for them, the abuser can use their resources to meet his own needs. Additionally, the criminal requires replenishing personal resources periodically; therefore, their behavior looks like a moving swing. Since the crime may be moral and not physical, it is crucial to provide accurate information about the defendant’s behavior and the severity of the harm caused in judicial practice. PCL-R is a robust predictor of violence across diverse populations, and may help the court (Blais & Ritchie, 2016, p. 1). Earlier, the court passed the verdict harder; for example, in the famous R v. Dove (1856), the judge rejected compelling medical evidence for an evil explanation (Holmes, 1991, p. 78). Moral abuse and parasitic lifestyle can develop into physical violence; therefore, judicial practice treats psychopaths like other criminals.
An antisocial sign or sociopathy is an ordinary inability of a person to communicate and behave in society. This idea about feeling no guilt can be supplemented by the fact that the psychopath is callously indifferent to the feelings of others. Furthermore, they cannot maintain relations with people if there are no difficulties in their formation. A psychopath tends to blame others and justify their behavior with good deeds. For example, if a team task with overlapping responsibilities fails, they will definitely find an excuse for themselves. This person can say he came up with many ideas for organizing a charity dinner, but they were not supported. At the same time, the team will argue the opposite, and the psychopath may answer that they were just misunderstood. It is a type of manipulation that such criminals often use. Interestingly, the attribute does not depend on culture, society, gender, and age. According to Bolt et al. (2004, p. 156), there are some variations in indicators in differential item functioning analyses, but they are not critical for the court. An antisocial sign is easy to calculate by looking at how they self-position.
The study proved that modern psychopathy research had improved the Western criminal justice system. It allows one to consider the factors of mental illness, which manifest themselves according to four criteria. The first point is negative emotionality and lack of guilt, which contribute to the commission of crimes. This category most often includes violence, in particular sexual violence. The second criterion is the interpersonal feature, which is expressed in the use of pathological lies. Usually, criminals practice it to achieve their goals, which they call good. The psychopath can wear a mask for a long time to gain leniency from the victim and then show their actual appearance. The third point is a person’s lifestyle in which they use a parasitic model of behavior. The psychopath can begin with the moral offense of loved ones and then hurt them physically or even kill them. The last point is the antisocial feature that can be identified when observing a person in society. They cannot build a normal relationship since they are not interested in it. The Western justice system has improved by considering the above factors to deliver a fair sentence.
References
Blais, J., & Ritchie, M. B. (2016). Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences, 1–4. Web.
Bolt, D. M., Hare, R. D., Vitale, J. E., & Newman, J. P. (2004). A multigroup item response theory analysis of the psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Psychological Assessment, 16(2), 155–168. Web.
de Oliveira-Souza, R., Moll, J., Azevedo Ignácio, F., & Hare, R. D. (2008). Psychopathy in a civil psychiatric outpatient sample. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(4), 427–437. Web.
Fox, B. H., Jennings, W. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2015). Bringing psychopathy into developmental and life-course criminology theories and research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(4), 274–289. Web.
Gretton, H. M., Mcbride, M., Hare, R. D., O’Shaughnessy, R., & Kumka, G. (2001). Psychopathy and recidivism in adolescent sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(4), 427–449. Web.
Hare, R. D. (2016). Psychopathy, the PCL-R, and criminal justice: Some new findings and current issues. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 57(1), 21–34. Web.
Holmes, C. A. (1991). Psychopathic disorder: A category mistake? Journal of Medical Ethics, 17(2), 77–85. Web.
Mackay, I. (1991). Psychopathic disorder: A category mistake? A legal response to colin Holmes. Journal of Medical Ethics, 17(2), 86–88. Web.
Olver, M. E., Neumann, C. S., Wong, S. C. P., & Hare, R. D. (2013). The structural and predictive properties of the psychopathy Checklist–Revised in Canadian aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders. Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 167–179. Web.
Zinger, I., & Forth, A. E. (1998). Psychopathy and Canadian criminal proceedings: The potential for human rights abuses. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 40(3), 237–276. Web.