Psychopathy Definition

Psychopathy as a mental disorder or construct, although not included in the presently valid classification systems, is gradually fascinating the experts and investigators involved in the field of mental health. Curiosity in psychopathy has mainly grown after the declaration of the new classification system DSM V in which psychopathy is mentioned as a clear diagnosis in the context of six new personality illnesses.

Psychopathy is an umbrella term that is both wide and varied. Much like the spectrum of light, there are numerous groups and subcategories. In this spectrum is Anti- Social Personality Disorder (referred to as ASPD in this essay); this condition unlike psychopathy is a recognized disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (referred to as the DSM). The term psychopathy and psychopath is used in both the media and everyday use as a disorder but this is untrue. Unlike a disorder, psychopathy is more of a series of traits that all individuals have. ASPD and psychopathy are used interchangeably in society, but the diagnosis for ASPD and psychopathy are quite different. Though similar in numerous ways, there are some key

Psychopathy; a term used to describe an individual with the ability to differentiate between right and wrong and acknowledge the rules of society, but are impervious to the moral foundation of these rules. Unlike other mental disorders such as sociopathy and schizophrenia, psychopathic individuals are able to understand actions that violate the law or go against social norms (Glenn 1). Although, they may be able to accurately judge moral and/or legal violations, one major factor that they lack is – emotional capacity. It is estimated that about 1% of the general population is made up of psychopaths, which is a considerable risk when it comes to crimes (Parry n.p). Therefore, the way in which the law responses to psychopathic individuals is an important moral and empirical issue. With that being said, should psychopaths be held criminally responsible for their behavior? Due to psychopathic individuals failure to meet criteria necessary for moral responsibility, such as the lack of understanding of the human race, predetermined biological structures of the brain and the fact that psychopathy is

Psychopathy, in both the mental health and criminal justice systems, has emerged as one of the most important clinical constructs of the 21st century (Hare, Clark, Grann, & Thornton, 2000, p. 623). Where clinically, psychopathy is traditionally described as a combination of inferred socially deviant behaviors and personality traits. Some traits and behaviors a psychopath is seen to possess are commonly known, for example, to being impulsive, selfish, aggressive, lacking remorse, shame, feeling for others, pathologically lying, and having asocial or antisocial behaviors (Hare, & Neumann, 2006, p. 59-60). One of the reasons as to why psychopathy has come to see an increase in the development of its theoretical and applied interest is the

Psychopaths have been around for more than a century, and have found themselves to be able to make the public fear them. Belle Gunness, the Zodiac Killer, and John Wayne Gacy are all examples for the character traits compatible with psychopathy and have been able to provide more reason to the research of psychopaths. Statistically, psychopathy is found in three percent of the male population and in one percent of one percent of the female population. A psychopath’s behavior of exploitation, lying, recklessness, and arrogance has been studied to further understand how their brain structure is different in MRI scans and how they are able to use special abilities to catch its victims. Many research studies have been able to provide more information

In order to protect oneself from a sociopath, one must understand the inner clockwork of one, in order to both diagnose others, or even self diagnose. Because of the danger of a sociopath and there chamelion like talent to blend in with the general community, they are very hard to identify, but knowing how to is crucial to keep oneself safe.

It is very rare to study something that is as fascinating yet as bewildering as the distinctive paradox, that is the human brain. Every individuals conflicting behaviour and elaborate character that make them the person they are must have a justification. I originally established a fascination in forensic psychology as I read about a sequence of homicides committed by Gary Ridgway, otherwise known as the “Green River Killer”. Upon discovery of this case, questions began to pervade in my head about what may be the cause for an individual to execute such things, and just how someone’s mind could be so peculiarly dissimilar to my own.

The concept of psychopathy originated in the 1800s to describe individuals that consistently failed to conform to societal norms and exhibited antisocial behavior that did not fit the concept of mental illness of the time period. While, psychopathy was a common term used to describe individuals suffering from this disorder other descriptions were coined such as “Pinel’s term “manie sans delvie” meaning mania without delirium in the 1700s, to describe patents whose ‘affective faculties were disordered’” or Pritchard’s term “moral insanity” (Ogloff 520). In the 1930’s Partridge argued that psychopathy was a social rather than a mental disorder and proposed that the concept of sociopathy be introduced as a more accurate description. The American Psychological Association adopted Partridge’s term for their Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel in 1952. However, in 1968 the American Psychological Association changed the diagnostic label from sociopath to “personality disorder, antisocial” for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel – II that continued through to the DSM - III in 1980 and the DSM - III-R in 1987 and the DSM - IV in 1994. Today the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel categorizes antisocial personality disorder as a personality disorder and it is named as such. Unfortunately, not much research has been conducted

The comment that business people are successful psychopaths and the criminals are unsuccessful psychopaths does make sense to me. In my eyes, it is basically stating business people encompass many more of the traits of a “psychopath” than criminals themselves. Psychopaths are known to be charming, self-interested, and unsympathetic. In my opinion, psychopaths use their personality traits to simply get what they want in life whether it is at the expense of others or not. With that being said, numerous managers or business people merely use their personality traits to get what they want in life or out of their job. For example, to get what they want business people can manipulate others, use their charm, and so on. This quote is not necessarily

Corporate Psychopaths – Corporate psychopaths are individuals employed by organizations that are self-serving, opportunistic, egotistical, mean that are charismatic, manipulative and goal-seeking (Boddy, 2005, p. 30).

A corporation is an artificial person established by the law. It nurses the same rights as humans contrariwise; they are not equally responsible for their actions. A corporation cannot face the same charges a human would: if illegal actions took place. Bakan illustrates the traits of a corporation to closely resemble the traits of a psychopathic individual human being. These traits are, but not limited to: “1) unconcern for others, 2) incapable of maintaining relationships, 3) disregard for others safety/health, 4) repeated lying, 5) incapable of experiencing guilt, and 6) failure to conform to social norms.” Therefore, executive’s means for earning high returns for shareholders can be seen as a trait of a psychopath. Yet, the corporation’s attributes are not based on the qualities of the executives outside of their careers. As Bakan would say, “the people who run corporations are, for the most part, good people, moral people.”

“Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by an inability to form human attachment, aggressive narcissism, and antisocial behavior defined by a constellation of affective, interpersonal and behavioral characteristics, most of which society views as pejorative” [1]. Some of these characteristics include irresponsibility, grandiosity, cunning, deceitfulness, selective impulsivity, sexual promiscuity, lack of empathy, etc. People who are psychopathic display not only antisocial behavior but also emotional impairment such as the lack of guilt. They are able to prey on others using their charm, deceit, violence or any other methods that allow them to get what they want. A strong feature of most of the behavior

There has been a myriad of research into psychopathy as it relates to the ordinary, violent criminal, yet little research exists into psychopathy of the non-violent, corporate criminal. We will examine whether there are truly differences in the psychopathy of these offenders in comparison to the average street level criminal, or whether the distinctions purely driven by our own need to justify the actions of well-educated, seemingly respectable members of society. We will examine the nature of corporate crime, the classification and identification of psychopathy, and how it applies to corporate criminals, uncovering the differences between their psychopathy and that of the ordinary criminal.

Psychopathy is a disease of the mind, in which the psychological state of someone has emotional or behavioral problems serious enough to require psychiatric evaluation. Psychopaths have no concern for the feelings of others and a complete disregard of any sense of social obligation. Psychopaths are characterized by lack of empathy, poor impulse control and manipulative behaviors. They use charm, manipulation, intimidation, and the use of severe to mild violence to satisfy their own needs.

A corporation is an artificial person established by the law. It nurses the same rights as humans contrariwise; they are not equally responsible for their actions. A corporation cannot face the same charges a human would, if illegal actions took place. Bakan illustrates the traits of a corporation to closely resemble the traits of a psychopathic individual human being. These traits are, but not limited to: “1) unconcern for others, 2) incapable of maintaining relationships, 3) disregard for others safety/health, 4) repeated lying, 5) incapable of experiencing guilt, and 6) failure to conform to social norms.” Therefore, executive’s means for earning high returns for shareholders can be seen as a trait of a psychopath. Yet, the corporation’s attributes are not based on the qualities of the executives outside of their careers. As Bakan would say, “the people who run corporations are, for the most part, good people, moral people.”