The Importance Of Psychopaths

An additional aspect connected with psychopathy is the incomplete repressed capability to make the dissimilarity among ethical and conventional offenses. An ethical offense could be explained as one that is distinct due to its punishments relevant to the privileges and welfare of individuals. A conventional offense could be explained by its punishments relevant for the good of the social order. In the instance of those with psychopathy, individuals make a reduced amount of association to the victims that were part of the situation, and additionally appear to have a time that is more complex trying distinguishing between ethical and conventional offenses mentioned during the situation. ("Psychopathy: A Misunderstood Personality Disorder", 2011). Therefore, if there is nothing eliminating the action or offense, adults as well as children with psychopathy, will most likely illustrate a diminished capacity to differentiate between the two types of offenses.

When most people hear the word psychopath their mind forms a picture of a wild-eyed, rambling, lunatic who is often restrained in a straitjacket. The media has helped this belief along the way with slasher horror films and grisly CSI episodes depict these strange humans. However, the average psychopath is much harder to spot than most people believe. In fact, most of them are extremely difficult to distinguish from ordinary humans. They outwardly appear normal and many do not find it difficult to blend into common society. They can interact with others, hold successful jobs, and effectively keep themselves out of trouble. Most are not the sadistic killers many people think they are. Psychopaths are people born with problems (Bartol 105) or

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

Expert witnesses from the case of Kjeldsen (1981) state that even though psychopaths are not able to experience remorse or guilt for their victims, they have the mental abilities to appreciate the nature and quality of the actions (Verdun-Jones, Criminal Law in Canada, 2015, p. 209). That is, in other words, psychopaths are to have capabilities to understand as well as foresee the physical consequences of their actions, despite not being able to understand the psychological damage created towards their victims (Verdun-Jones, Criminal Law in Canada, 2015, p.

However, more recently, a study led by King’s College London has claimed that there are differences between the brains of psychopaths and other criminal offenders diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder. Dr. Nigel Blackwood who led the research is quoted as saying “We describe those without psychopathy as 'hot-headed' and those with psychopathy as ‘cold-hearted’.” This statement shows a clear distinction between what should be interpreted as a lack of self-control and ability to repress impulses and what should be diagnosed as psychopathy.
The study took MRI scans of 66 men, two thirds of which were offenders who had been diagnosed with antisocial personality whilst the other third were non-offenders considered to not have any personality disorders. Of the 44 offenders, 17 met the diagnosis criteria for psychopathy (ASPD+P) assessed by the guidelines stated in the DSM-IV. Researchers saw that the members of the study diagnosed as psychopaths had notably less grey matter in areas associated with moral behaviour and understanding other peoples’

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

In fact,because psychopaths are not able to feel empathy involuntarily, they are able to turn the feeling on. It is very common for psychopaths to have “ a false belief in their own superiority, a sense of entitlement and a complete disregard for social norms” (Paula, year). Psychopathy had recently been changed into ‘antisocial personality disorder’ in the updated version of the FBI’s mental health book, DSM-III. It was changed for the reason of the personality not always being reliable, as well as psychopathy symptoms crossing over antisocial personality disorder symptoms. Another reason for the change was because it is believed that focusing on behavior instead of the why helped identify the disorder easier. The new research was highly and widely discussed among many physicians because some felt unsure of the change, but they were also for the change with consideration of the evidence that was found. The usual psychopath is not found to be violent. If they are violent, they are considered more dangerous than others and will most likely reoffend sooner and worse than the first time. Between psychopaths and non psychopaths, psychopaths have a longer criminal history which varies in crimes. Their patterns are unique when compared to a non psychopath, but due to their inability to have emotion, they are able to be more observant on their next chosen

Unfortunately, changing the biological composition of their brain is not as easily achieved. Studies have found multiple areas of interest when studying the brain structures in psychopaths. These minor differences provide a world of knowledge into what composes a psychopath. Since each area of the brain serves a specific function, determining the effects of abnormalities correlates to the area of interest. Due to the major costs associated with many tests, they are not performed unless indicated. Brain imaging research on psychopathy: Implications for punishment, prediction, and treatment in youth and adults provides us with the very new research that has been conducted on both adult psychopaths, and juveniles that display callous unemotional traits (CU) and have disruptive behavior disorder (DBD) (Umbach et al., 2015). Research done has not given conclusive results that fits for each and every psychopath, but an area of commonality is the amygdala. “In addition to their finding of significant bilateral volume reductions in psychopaths, Yang et al. (2009) identified localized surface deformations in four of the 13 nuclei: the basolateral, lateral, cortical, and central nuclei.” (Umbach et al., 2015, p.296). The paralimbic structure is seen as the emotion processing center of the brain, controlling all emotions including empathy and conditioned fear

Sixteen psychopaths and sixteen nonpsychopaths were identified and chosen to participate in the study based on demographic, cognitive and substance abuse variables. The researchers went through this to assure that the two samples were very similar in these three categories of variables. The samples were shown three different picture sets each of 25 pictures: moral (immoral actions in an unpleasant setting), nonmoral (nonmoral actions in an unpleasant setting) and neutral (nonmoral actions in a neutral setting). The participants were asked to rate the pictures on a 1-5 scale with 5 being the highest on extent on moral violation. They were told that this was based on their own moral beliefs and not what society would think. Functional magnetic resonance imaging was done during the trials to show the brain activity of the participants. This was done to determine whether there was increased activity with higher or lower ratings. In moral decision making, psychopaths were shown to have less to no activity in the anterior temporal and ventromedial cortex when compared to the increased activity with nonpsychopaths during moral tasks. But they still ranked them properly, but without the activation. The reduced activity in ventromedial prefrontal cortex shows reduced moral decision making

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 medical definition of insanity differs completely from the legal aspect. The medical definition of insanity is, as The Free Dictionary defines “a medically obsolete term for mental derangement or disorder.” There is no mention of criminal activity or lack of responsibility

A significant and controversial issue within the legal system is the ‘insanity defense’ in which during a criminal trial, the defendant will make a claim that they are not guilty by reason of insanity, or in other words, they have deficient and impaired cognitive and mental capabilities. These mental health problems associated with insanity are caused by psychopathological disorders, which may have led to their dysfunction. What separates this from a regular plead of ‘diminished capacity’ is that a plea of insanity is a full defense rather than just a partial defense (Legal information institute, n.d.). With the diminished capacity defense, the defendant’s mental competence is still the focus, although they are pleading to a lesser crime

Of all the psychiatric disorders, none are more chilling to the world then the psychopaths and sociopaths. These two disorders, categorized as antisocial personality disorders, bring about the absolute worse people and killers that the world has ever known. The infamous serial killers, the people who do the unimaginable, were all psychopaths. The ability of these people to do what they do and know that what they are doing is wrong, is perhaps one of the most chilling and shocking characteristic of these people. Psychopaths and sociopaths are very often thought by most to be the same disorder, yet they are different when classified by many psychiatric researchers. The people classified as psychopaths and sociopaths are separated by one main difference, and that is if they were born with a lack of the ability to empathize or if they were affected as children in a traumatic environment. Although both of these horrible disorders derive from a different area, the reality is that they are unpredictable, undetectable and most importantly, they can be very dangerous.

“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

Psychopaths can seem just like you or me, but when you are not around them this is when their mental disorder kicks in. Psychopaths that have been put in jail committed three times as many crimes per year then non-psychopaths. 97% of convicted psychopathic criminals cause at least one violent crime compared to 74% of non-psychopaths. Psychopaths are shown to be more violence throughout their entire life compared to a regular people. Psychopaths tend to have a greater chance of failing on parole and mandatory supervision and have a faster rate of failing then non-psychopaths. Psychopathy predicts recidivism on conditional release as well as or better than do actuarial risk instruments. Psychopaths recidivate at a rate of three to four times higher than that of non-psychopaths.