No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Legal issues Associated with the Concept of Psychopathy
Abstract
It is noteworthy that the title of the NATO ASI from which this book emerged was “Psychopathy: Theory, Research, and Implications for Society.” As the other chapters make clear, over the course of 10 days there was much discussion of theory and research concerning psychopathy. While some of the presentations and discussions addressed the behavior of psychopathy and its effect on society, there was relatively little mention of the implications of the concept for society. In other words — how can or should our knowledge of psychopathy affect society?
... When the first edition of this chapter was published (Edens & Petrila, 2006), the mental health field had been experiencing since the early 1990s an explosion of research on psychopathy, largely prompted by (1) the publication of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991Hare, , 2003 and the development of several self-report scales designed to assess psychopathic traits, and (2) general dissatisfaction with the conceptualization of antisocial personality disorder in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2000). At that time, however, with a few notable exceptions (see Edens, Petrila, & Buffington-Vollum, 2001;Hare, 1996Hare, , 1998Hart, 1998;Lyon & Ogloff, 2000;Ogloff & Lyon, 1998;Zinger & Forth, 1998), there had been limited scholarly discussion or empirical analysis of the role of psychopathy specifically within the legal system, or of ethical issues related to the growing use of psychopathy scales to influence case outcomes. The original version of this chapter focused on legal contexts in which psychopathy was being introduced, and on professional and ethical issues that can arise when assessing psychopathy for purposes of addressing legal questions. ...
... In addition, terms such as "antisocial personality disorder," "psychopathy," "sociopathy," and "dissocial personality disorder" are often used interchangeably, despite the differing criteria for each label (Ogloff & Lyon, 1998). The use of these alternative labels has important ramifications for mental health professionals performing assessments in legal settings. ...
... The Court suggested that trial judges should consider a number of factors in making this decision, including the testability of the theory or technique in question, whether peer review has been applied, the known or potential error rate, presence and use of standards controlling its operation, and whether the theory or technique had attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community. In Canada, the courts examine four factors in determining whether to admit expert evidence: its relevance, whether the evidence is necessary to assist the trier of fact, the presence or absence of an exclusionary rule, and an expert who is qualified (Ogloff & Lyon, 1998). ...
"Psychopathy” is a term that is increasingly found in both judicial opinions and legislation,
and that appears as a focus of expert testimony in numerous types of criminal and civil cases (DeMatteo et al., 2014a, 2014b; Edens & Cox, 2012; Viljoen, McLachlan, & Vincent,
2010). Although the legal system has a history of using the term uncritically, “psychopathy” lies at the heart of some of the most contentious debates in criminal and mental health law. Those debates address fundamental legal questions such as the restraint of liberty and imposition of the death penalty, as well as professional issues, such as the proper role of mental health expertise, diagnoses, and labels in legal proceedings. The original version of this chapter focused on legal contexts in which psychopathy was being introduced, and on professional and ethical issues that can arise when assessing psychopathy for purposes of addressing legal questions. In this update, we revisit several key topics that were raised in the original chapter and review a wealth of new evidence that has been published since the first edition of this handbook. This new evidence examines how psychopathy is impacting the legal field and directly bears on the ethical use of assessment instruments developed to measure this personality disorder.
... When the first edition of this chapter was published (Edens & Petrila, 2006), the mental health field had been experiencing since the early 1990s an explosion of research on psychopathy, largely prompted by (a) the publication of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991Hare, /2003 and the development of several self-report scales designed to assess psychopathic traits, as well as (b) general dissatisfaction with the conceptualization of Antisocial Personality Disorder in the 4 th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV;American Psychiatric Association, 2000). At that time, however, with a few notable exceptions (see Edens, Petrila, & Buffington-Vollum, 2001;Hare, 1996Hare, , 1998Hart, 1998;Lyon & Ogloff, 2000;Ogloff & Lyon, 1998;Zinger & Forth, 1998), there had been limited scholarly discussion or empirical analysis of the role of psychopathy specifically within the legal system, or of ethical issues related to the growing use of psychopathy scales to influence case outcomes. ...
... There is also a larger debate regarding whether terms such as psychopathy and personality disorder are primarily legal or diagnostic categories, or neither (Ogloff & Lyon, 1998;Reed, 1996), and whether personality disorders should be regarded as mental illnesses. Of note, one commentator has suggested that the development of effective treatments for personality disorders would influence psychiatrists to conclude that such disorders were illnesses (Kendell, 2002; see also Krober & Lau, 2000, for a discussion of the use of personality disorders in German criminal law). ...
... In addition, terms such as antisocial personality disorder, psychopathy, sociopathy, and dissocial personality disorder are often used interchangeably, despite the differing criteria for each label (Ogloff & Lyon, 1998). The use of these alternative labels has important ramifications for mental health professionals performing assessments in legal settings. ...
This chapter discusses core issues in assessing and treating individuals labeled "psychopaths," focusing both on the legal contexts in which this construct may be introduced and on the ethical issues that arise when mental health examiners choose (or are obligated by statute) to assess psychopathy for purposes of addressing legal questions (e.g., treatment amenability, violence risk). In the first part of this chapter ("The Role of Psychopathy in the Legal System"), the authors provide a brief overview of the legal contexts in which the term "psychopath" has been used. The authors also note a number of threshold issues, including questions of language, probabilistic versus individual decision making in legal settings, and general questions of admissibility. The second part of the chapter ("Assessing Psychopathy: Ethical Standards and Guidelines") discusses the specific role of the mental health examiner in assessing psychopathy, focusing on ethical issues related to the assessment itself, controversies regarding what types of conclusions and inferences should be made regarding the results of these assessments, and how to best communicate these conclusions and inferences to nonclinicians in the legal system who may be unfamiliar with this construct and its implications. In particular, the authors review contexts in which we believe the relevance of psychopathy data has been or can be overstated, such as in relation to violence risk issues and perceived lack of treatment amenability. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
... The best way to avoid these diagnostic errors is not to diag- nose psychopathy before the beginning of early adulthood, at least 18 years old or possibly even 25 years old (American Psychiatric Association, 2000;Hare, 1991Hare, , 2003World Health Organization, 1992). Those who assess psychopathy-related personality disturbance in childhood or adolescence should bear in mind the potential ethi- cal and legal problems associated with this practice (e.g., Edens & Vincent, 2008;Edens et al., 2001;Ogloff & Lyon, 1998;Viljoen, MacDougall, Gagnon, & Douglas, 2010). ...
... Mental disorder is defined differently in law than in the mental health professions (specifically with respect topsy- chopathy, see Lyon & Ogloff, 2000;Ogloff & Lyon, 1998;more generally, see Melton et al., 2007;Schopp, 2001). The legal definition is not bound by the diagnostic criteria contained in any specific nosological system in psychol- ogy or psychiatry. ...
The Psychopathy Checklist (PCL; Hare, 1980) and its revision (PCL-R; Hare, 1985a, in press) are clinical rating scales that provide researchers and clinicians with reliable and valid assessments of psychopathy. Their development was spurred largely by dissatisfactions with the ways in which other assessment procedures defined and measured psychopathy (Hare, 1980, 1985b).
... The best way to avoid these diagnostic errors is not to diagnose psychopathy before the beginning of early adulthood, at least 18 years old or possibly even 25 years old (American Psychiatric Association, 2000;Hare, 1991Hare, , 2003World Health Organization, 1992). Those who assess psychopathy-related personality disturbance in childhood or adolescence should bear in mind the potential ethical and legal problems associated with this practice (e.g., Edens & Vincent, 2008;Edens et al., 2001;Ogloff & Lyon, 1998;Viljoen, MacDougall, Gagnon, & Douglas, 2010). ...
... Mental disorder is defined differently in law than in the mental health professions (specifically with respect topsychopathy, see Lyon & Ogloff, 2000;Ogloff & Lyon, 1998; more generally, see Melton et a!., 2007;Schopp, 2001). The legal definition is not bound by the diagnostic criteria contained in any specific nosological system in psychology or psychiatry. ...
begin with a discussion of issues surrounding the assessment of psychopathy, with special emphasis on the distinction between psychopathy, as defined by the criteria in the original and revised Psychopathy Checklist (PCL, PCL-R), and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (DSM-IV) / the reasons for this are, first, psychopathy and ASPD are often treated as, but in fact are not, equivalent diagnoses; second, not all criminals are psychopaths or have ASPD, and not all those with ASPD are psychopaths; and, third, the association between psychopathy and criminal conduct becomes clear only when the disorder is assessed with reliable and valid procedures / review research on the association between psychopathy and crime, most of which is based on studies using the PCL and PCL-R (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
... The best way to avoid these diagnostic errors is not to diagnose psychopathy before the beginning of early adulthood, at least 18 years old or possibly even 25 years old (American Psychiatric Association, 2000;Hare, 1991Hare, , 2003World Health Organization, 1992). Those who assess psychopathy-related personality disturbance in childhood or adolescence should bear in mind the potential ethical and legal problems associated with this practice (e.g., Edens & Vincent, 2008;Edens et al., 2001;Ogloff & Lyon, 1998;Viljoen, MacDougall, Gagnon, & Douglas, 2010). ...
... Mental disorder is defined differently in law than in the mental health professions (specifically with respect topsychopathy, see Lyon & Ogloff, 2000;Ogloff & Lyon, 1998; more generally, see Melton et a!., 2007;Schopp, 2001). The legal definition is not bound by the diagnostic criteria contained in any specific nosological system in psychology or psychiatry. ...
The first section of the chapter reviews research on psychopathy. The first section ends with an overview of some theories that may account for the increased risk of violence among psychopathic individuals. In the second section, the authors review research on sadistic personality disorder. The chapter is concluded by highlighting some important similarities and differences between psychopathy and sadistic personality disorder with respect to clinical presentation, violence history, and possible etiology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
... The best way to avoid these diagnostic errors is not to diagnose psychopathy before the beginning of early adulthood, at least 18 years old or possibly even 25 years old (American Psychiatric Association, 2000;Hare, 1991Hare, , 2003World Health Organization, 1992). Those who assess psychopathy-related personality disturbance in childhood or adolescence should bear in mind the potential ethical and legal problems associated with this practice (e.g., Edens & Vincent, 2008;Edens et al., 2001;Ogloff & Lyon, 1998;Viljoen, MacDougall, Gagnon, & Douglas, 2010). ...
... Mental disorder is defined differently in law than in the mental health professions (specifically with respect topsychopathy, see Lyon & Ogloff, 2000;Ogloff & Lyon, 1998; more generally, see Melton et al., 2007;Schopp, 2001). The legal definition is not bound by the diagnostic criteria contained in any specific nosological system in psychology or psychiatry. ...
The chapter begins with a discussion of the current clinical conceptualizations of psychopathy and basic diagnostic issues. The authors argue that the procedures used to assess psychopathy should reflect the decision-making purpose of the assessment and the nature of the disorder being assessed. The second section reviews the most commonly used methods for assessing psychopathy. Clinical or expert rating scales of psychopathy (e.g., The Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Revised) are identified as having a better fit to the assessment task than are other assessment methods (e.g., self-report questionnaires, structured diagnostic interviews). The third section identifies important professional and clinical issues that practitioners should keep in mind when assessing psychopathy. Issues related to the assessment of psychopathy among children and adolescents, and the assessment of risk for violence, are discussed. The fourth section examines a number of professional and clinical issues that arise as part of the clinical-forensic assessment of psychopathy. These issues include failing to appropriately use accepted procedures for assessing psychopathy, using assessment procedures without adequate training and experience, and not establishing causal connections between diagnoses of psychopathy and the relevant legal issues. The authors provide practical recommendations for dealing with these and other clinical and professional issues. The chapter concludes with a discussion of issues that are priorities for future research.
Keywords:
assessment;
clinical issues;
hare psychopathy checklist—revised (PCL-R);
professional issues;
psychopathy;
risk assessment
... Justice and Behavior have been devoted specifically to the topic of psychopathy) as well as in the growing use of this disorder to inform legal decision making across the world (for overviews, see Edens & Petrila, 2006; Ogloff & Lyon, 1998). Psychopathy, typically operationalized by the Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (PCL–R; Hare, 1991 Hare, , 2003), is associated with a number of real world criterion measures of considerable practical significance, such as increased risk for misconduct while institutionalized (Guy, Edens, Anthony, & Douglas, in press), community violence (Skeem & Mulvey, 2001 ), and criminal recidivism following release from prison (Hemphill, Hare, & Wong, 1998). ...
... That is, to what extent does the construct of psychopathy identify a fundamentally distinct class of individuals who differ qualitatively from the rest of society? Although this question is by no means specific to psychopathy (e.g., similar questions have been raised in relation to other personality disorders [Haslam, 2003] as well as various Axis I diagnoses), the outcome of this debate may be of considerable practical significance given the increasing role of the highly charged label of psychopath in the legal system, where the PCL–R has been used to justify indeterminate commitment, rebut insanity defenses, and bolster support for the death penalty in capital murder trials (Cunningham & Reidy, 2002; DeMatteo & Edens, 2005; Edens, in press; Edens & Petrila, 2006; Edens, Petrila, & BuffingtonVollum, 2001; Ogloff, & Lyon, 1998). Although some researchers have argued that psychopathy is a constellation or configuration of extreme levels of continuously distributed personality traits (e.g., Benning, Patrick, Blonigen, Hicks, & Iacono, 2005; Lilienfeld & Fowler, 2006; Miller, Lynam, Widiger, & Leukefeld, 2001), other researchers have staked out a position that strongly endorses a taxonic structure. ...
Although psychopathy is frequently regarded as qualitatively distinct from other conditions, relatively little research has examined whether psychopaths represent a distinct class of individuals. Using a sample of 876 prison inmates and court-ordered substance abuse patients who were administered the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (R. D. Hare, 2003), the authors examined the latent structure of psychopathy using several taxometric procedures developed by Meehl and colleagues (P. E. Meehl & L. J. Yonce, 1994; N. G. Waller & P. E. Meehl, 1998). The results across these procedures offer no compelling support for the contention that psychopathy is a taxonic construct and contradict previous reports that psychopathy is underpinned by a latent taxon. The authors discuss the theoretical, public policy, and practice-level implications of these findings.
... Although not without its detractors [20,21], legal and ethical issues [22][23][24], reviews of the PCL-R have been positive and literally more than 100 peer reviewed studies support the reliability and validity of the PCL-R. In a review of the PCL-R for the Mental Measurements Yearbook , Fulero [25] described the PCL-R as 'state of the art . . . ...
... Prisoners were referred to the program, which targeted high risk, violent offenders with personality disorders. PCL-R scores were used to divide the patients into high (score of 27 or more), medium (18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26) and low (17 and below) psychopathy groups. Staff assessed the progress of prisoners using the extensive clinical and institutional file information that was available. ...
Psychopathy has traditionally been characterised as a disorder primarily of personality (particularly affective deficits) and, to a lesser extent, behaviour. Although often used interchangeably, the diagnostic constructs of psychopathy, antisocial personality disorder, and dissocial personality disorder are distinct. In this article, the relevant historical and contemporary literature concerning psychopathy is briefly reviewed. The diagnostic criteria for psychopathy, antisocial personality disorder, and dissocial personality disorder are compared. Consideration is given to the assessment, prevalence, and implications of psychopathy for violence risk and treatment efficacy. The DSM-IV-TR criteria for antisocial personality disorder, in particular, are largely behaviourally based. The ICD criteria for dissocial personality disorder, while paying more attention to affective deficits, also do not represent the broad personality and behavioural components of psychopathy. Since 1980, a great deal of research on these disorders has been conducted, using the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, Revised (PCL-R). The PCL-R assesses both personality (interpersonal and affective) and behavioural (lifestyle and antisocial) deficits. As such, the research and clinical implications of psychopathy, as operationalised by the PCL-R, cannot be readily extrapolated to the diagnoses of antisocial personality disorder and dissocial personality disorder. As currently construed, the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder grossly over-identifies people, particularly those with offence histories, as meeting the criteria for the diagnosis. For example, research shows that between 50% and 80% of prisoners meet the criteria for a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, yet only approximately 15% of prisoners would be expected to be psychopathic, as assessed by the PCL-R. As such, the characteristics and research findings drawn from the psychopathy research may not be relevant for those with antisocial or dissocial personality disorder.
... Two descriptors have been used to designate the anomalous psychological qualities of mafia membership i.e. dyssocial and sociopathic. Of the two terms, "sociopathy" has gained the greatest use, even as it has also been used interchangeably with psychopathy (Ogloff & Lyon, 1998), and has also been understood and applied most inconsistently. ...
The Italian mafia organizations represent a subculture with values, beliefs and goals that are antithetical to and undermining of the predominant society. The conduct of individual members includes such extreme violence for material gain, it may at least superficially suggest a severe personality disorder. Since the first edition of the DSM and into the 21st century, various terms have been used, sometimes interchangeably, but over time inconsistently, to designate the mentality and practices of mafia members. Only recently has the psychology of mafia members become a focus of serious scientific study. Following broader national multicenter research, the present study aimed at investigating the possible differences in psychopathy between those mafia associates who had been convicted only of mafia association (Group A, bosses), and those who were also convicted of violent crimes (Group B, soldiers). The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) was administered to n = 48 male inmates convicted of mafia association (Mage 45.0 years, SD 10.9, range 20-80 years); Group A consisted of n = 26 (54%) subjects, Group B n = 22 (46%). Most of the sample (73%) did not manifest psychopathy (PCL-R ≥ 25) nor Mann-Whitney U test disclosed significant differences in the total PCL-R scores between the study groups. We found significantly higher scores of PCR-R factor 1 (interpersonal / affective) in the members of the mafia association also convicted of violent crimes (PCL-R F1, group A: 5.8 ± 3.7; group B: 7.9 ± 3.5; p < 0.05), this difference appeared explainable on the basis of a higher component of affective psychopathy. These initial results add to the limited literature on mafia and psychopathy and seem to suggest the existence of a specific component of psychopathy in the subgroup of mafiosi with overtly violent conduct.
... Because it is typically the prosecution that seeks to introduce it into evidence, some scholars have argued that a psychopathy diagnosis is primarily a "prosecution tool" (DeMatteo et al., 2014b, p. 96). The first edition of the PCL-R was commercially published in 1991 (Hare, 1991), with extended narrative critiques of its uses and abuses in legal settings first beginning to appear in the late 1990s/early 2000s (Edens, Petrila, & Buffington-Vollum, 2001;Fitch & Ortega, 2000;Hare, 1998;Kröber & Lau, 2000;Lyon & Ogloff, 2000;Ogloff & Lyon, 1998;Reed, 1996;Zinger & Forth, 1998). Since that time, various case law reviews and professional surveys have examined the increasing role of psychopathy evidence and the PCL-R in legal proceedings. ...
Evidence concerning psychopathic personality disorder (psychopathy) is frequently introduced in legal systems to address a wide range of questions that decision-makers (i.e., judges or juries) are tasked with adjudicating. These questions often revolve around defendants’ likely future conduct (e.g., the potential for violent and other types of criminal acts) but also may concern their diagnostic status or their ability to exercise volitional control over their actions. The types of cases in which psychopathy evidence is used tend to be ones involving potentially severe life-altering (e.g., indeterminate confinement) or even life-ending (e.g., capital punishment) legal consequences. In this chapter, we first review the uses of psychopathy assessment instruments in legal settings based on published case law and surveys of legal and mental health professionals. Next, we review various controversies concerning the relevance of psychopathy evidence in relation to the types of legal questions at issue, particularly in relation to its potentially stigmatizing impact on decision-makers. We conclude with a discussion of emerging issues in the assessment of this disorder and how these may impact the uses of psychopathy in legal systems in the future.
... Because it is typically the prosecution that seeks to introduce it into evidence, some scholars have argued that a psychopathy diagnosis is primarily a "prosecution tool" (DeMatteo et al., 2014b, p. 96). The first edition of the PCL-R was commercially published in 1991 (Hare, 1991), with extended narrative critiques of its uses and abuses in legal settings first beginning to appear in the late 1990s/early 2000s (Edens, Petrila, & Buffington-Vollum, 2001;Fitch & Ortega, 2000;Hare, 1998;Kröber & Lau, 2000;Lyon & Ogloff, 2000;Ogloff & Lyon, 1998;Reed, 1996;Zinger & Forth, 1998). Since that time, various case law reviews and professional surveys have examined the increasing role of psychopathy evidence and the PCL-R in legal proceedings. ...
... Much of this work has either direct or indirect implications for the applied utilization of psychopathy scales in "real-world" settings such as the courts and correctional systems, which seem increasingly interested in using this disorder to inform various types of legal decision making. In fact, references to psychopathy (and related terms such as antisocial personality disorder) appear to be growing in both judicial opinions and legislation; psychopathy also has been the focus of expert testimony in a variety of criminal and civil trials (DeMatteo & Edens, 2006;Edens & Cox, 2012;Ogloff & Lyon, 1998;Viljoen, MacDougall, Gagnon, & Douglas, 2010). Moreover, assessments of psychopathy often directly bear on some of the most heated topics in criminal and mental health law (Edens & Petrila, 2006). ...
... Since the PCL-R's commercial publication in 1991, several authors (including the instrument's developer) have provided anecdotal examples of its application-and in some instances, misapplication-in legal proceedings (e.g., Edens, 2001;Edens & Petrila, 2006;Edens, Petrila, & Buffington-Vollum, 2001;Hare, 1998;Ogloff & Lyon, 1998;Zinger & Forth, 1998). In the first study to systematically examine the use of the PCL-R in court, DeMatteo and Edens (2006) summarized trends in the introduction of the PCL-R in U.S. courts. ...
Although the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003) appears to be the most widely used measure of psychopathic traits in forensic settings around the world, relatively little is known about how often it is introduced into legal cases and the types of cases in which it is being used. DeMatteo and Edens (2006) first summarized the extant U.S. case law on the PCL-R, identifying 87 cases in which it had been introduced since its publication in 1991 through 2004. Using an identical search strategy employed in the earlier review (LexisNexis legal database), we identified 348 cases involving the PCL-R from 2005 through 2011. Notably, the PCL-R appeared to be primarily a “prosecution tool” in these cases in that it was rarely first introduced into evidence by the defense. In most cases it was used to assess offenders with significant histories of violence in the context of risk assessments—with resulting risk statements being strongly associated with the results of the PCL-R evaluation (i.e., high psychopathy equating with high recidivism risk, low psychopathy equating with low recidivism risk). Challenges to the admissibility of PCL-R evidence in these cases were rare and typically unsuccessful, even though some assertions, particularly in relation to the PCL-R’s predictive validity, appeared to have questionable scientific support. On average, prosecution examiners reported PCL-R scores that were 7 points higher than defense examiners. We discuss these findings in the context of the appropriate roles for the PCL-R in court and its potential for misuse when evaluating psycho-legal issues. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved)
... Andrews and Bonta (1995) have argued that resources should be allocated in direct proportion to individual risk. In practice, higher risk juvenile offenders are often placed in services that provide fewer treatment resources on the rationale that treatment is unlikely to reach these more difficult offenders (Ogloff and Lyon 1998). In addition, because security costs are higher in programs designed to manage more dangerous youth, programs of this type are costly even without substantial treatment services. ...
This study reports on the cost benefits of an intensive treatment program for unmanageable juvenile delinquent boys, compared to the usual treatment in a secured juvenile corrections facility. A total of 101 boys who received the majority of their treatment services in a specialized program providing intensive mental health treatment were matched to a group of 101 juveniles who received treatment as usual (TAU) in a secured juvenile corrections setting on the basis of treatment propensity scores. Outcome data included the number and type of criminally charged offenses over an average follow-up period of 53 months (range 14 to 92 months). Borrowing from Cohen criminal justice processing costs for each offense was calculated in 2001 dollars. The initial costs of the program were offset by improved treatment progress and lowered recidivism, especially violent recidivism. The treatment group yielded a benefit-cost ratio of more than 7 to 1 over the TAU group. The results are discussed and compared to cost-benefit analyses of other juvenile treatment programs.
... Throughout this article, youth with high PCL:YV scores are referred to as psychopathy-like or having psychopathy features. The term psychopathic has been avoided because the developmental appropriateness of extending these terms downward from adults to adolescents remains an open question (e.g., Edens, Skeem, Cruise, & Cauffman, 2001;Ogloff & Lyon, 1998;Seagrave & Grisso, 2002;Zinger & Forth, 1998). ...
This study examines the treatment response of 141 juvenile offenders with high scores on the Psychopathy Checklist:Youth Version (M total > 27). Two groups of potentially psychopathic offenders are compared: one that participates in the Mendota Juvenile Treatment Center (MJTC), an intensive treatment program (MJTC, n = 56), and another that receives “treatment as usual” in conventional juvenile correctional institution (JCI) settings (JCI, n = 85). Offenders in the JCI group are more than twice as likely to violently recidivate in the community during a 2-year follow-up than those who participate in MJTC treatment. Treatment is associated with relatively slower and lower rates of serious recidivism, even after controlling for the effects of nonrandom assignment to treatment groups and release status. Implications for further research, treatment development, and juvenile justice issues are discussed.
... Such populations include offenders with mental illnesses or personality disorders, those with co-occurring disorders such as substance abuse and mental illness, and those with multiple problems that present a particular challenge for correctional and forensic agencies. Also, despite the very real concerns regarding the use of pejorative labels such as "psychopathy" (see Lyon & Ogloff, 2000;Ogloff & Lyon, 1998) and concerns surrounding violence risk assessment (McNiel et al., in press), there is a very real need for Australian-based research in these areas. ...
As the articles in the special issue make clear, significant advances have been made in the field of offender rehabilitation over the past 25 years. Reflecting on the contributions in the this special issue, this article discusses the foundational considerations, populations of concern, psychological needs, and historical lessons concerning offender rehabilitation.
... The instrument used in this study was based on a survey developed by Ogloff and Lyon (1998) in a study of Canadian forensic psychologists. The Ogloff and Lyon survey was altered by the addition of questions and checklist options in the following areas: demographic background, context of the risk evaluation, addition of newer instruments used in risk evaluations (e.g., the HCR-20, VRAG), use of assessment instruments specifically to diagnose psychopathy, forensic practice issues in the courts, and opinions regarding the weight the courts should place on psychopathy as a risk factor in a variety of contexts (e.g., sentencing, civil commitment). ...
Psychologists are often asked to testify in court. However, concerns have been expressed in both the legal and psychological literatures about the quality of these services. This article presents survey results comparing the practice patterns of generally licensed psychologists with those of specialist forensic diplomates in providing risk evaluations. Results suggest that general clinicians frequently perform these evaluations, but forensic diplomates use more modern risk instruments, are more aware of the scientific literature, and provide the court with more information about the scientific basis of their testimony. The implication of these results for legal professionals, psychologist training, and practice are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
... As might be surmised from the brief summary of the literature on the predictive utility of psychopathy provided above, various authors have argued that there is ample evidence to support clinicians' use of the PCL–R to inform a number of referral questions in legal contexts (Edens & Petrila, 2006; Hare, 2003; Ogloff & Lyon, 1998). Despite this general contention, we submit that the relevance of any FRI to address any specific legal issue should not be presumed, but rather should be demonstrable in relation to the accumulated scientific evidence that has addressed the topic. ...
The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; R. D. Hare, 1991, 2003) is the most empirically validated instrument for measuring psychopathy in correctional and forensic psychiatric populations. The PCL-R's predictive utility with criminal justice populations has led to its frequent use by clinicians conducting forensic assessments in criminal and sexually violent predator (SVP) cases. Despite its apparent wide acceptance in U.S. courts, little is known about how often the PCL-R is being introduced, the types of cases in which it is being used, and whether claims made in court regarding psychopathy are empirically defensible and/or relevant to the question at hand. This project documents some uses of the PCL-R in U.S. courts from 1991 through 2004 by year, jurisdiction, type of evaluation, and party. The results suggest that the PCL-R is being used by expert witnesses with increasing regularity across U.S. jurisdictions, primarily to assess risk of future violence. A review of 3 recent cases is also provided that illustrates concerns about the validity of the PCL-R for certain types of legal questions that may arise in criminal and SVP trials. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
... Throughout this article, youth with high PCL:YV scores are referred to as psychopathy-like or having psychopathy features. The term psychopathic has been avoided because the developmental appropriateness of extending these terms downward from adults to adolescents remains an open question (e.g., Edens, Skeem, Cruise, & Cauffman, 2001; Ogloff & Lyon, 1998; Seagrave & Grisso, 2002; Zinger & Forth, 1998). had greater treatment resources than standard juvenile corrections institutions (JCIs). ...
... Personality disorders are relevant in forensic and correctional settings because of the known and putative correlates of various forms of character pathology, as well as the inclusion of personality disorder diagnoses into various legal statutes and case law (e.g. Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act, 1999;Ogloff & Lyon, 1998). In the following section, we focus on research on the two personality disorder scales, Antisocial Features (ANT) and Borderline Features (BOR), contained within the PAI. ...
The relative utility of psychological tests for addressing legal issues is an area of considerable debate in the field. Regardless of the merits of psychological testing, it is apparent that such instruments are used widely both to address specific psycholegal issues and to evaluate offender populations more generally. One instrument gaining prominence in terms of its use in both forensic and correctional settings is the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991), which was developed to assess various constructs relevant to clinical settings (e.g. psychopathology, response distortion, and personality traits). This paper reviews the psychometric properties of the PAI specifically in reference to its ability to assess factors relevant to forensic decision-making, as well as its utility to provide clinically relevant information about offender populations more generally. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
... Psychopathic personality disorder (psychopathy) represents a distinct constellation of interpersonal, affective, and behavioral traits that may occur in the context of significant antisocial conduct (Cleckley, 1941(Cleckley, /1988Hare, 2003). Not surprisingly, this disorder is of considerable interest to the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems (DeMatteo & Edens, 2006;Edens, 2006;Edens & Petrila, 2006;Edens & Vincent, 2008;Ogloff & Lyon, 1998;Walsh & Walsh, 2006;Zinger & Forth, 1998). Although effect sizes vary substantially from one study to the next, adults and adolescents who obtain higher scores on the most widely studied measures of psychopathy, the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003) and Psycho-Behavioral Sciences and the Law Behav. ...
This study examined the predictive validity of two widely used measures of psychopathic traits, the Psychopathy Checklist--Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003) and the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996). Records of institutional infractions were obtained for a young adult sample of prison inmates (N = 46), who were followed for approximately two years following administration of these two scales. The PPI total and two factor scores predicted the total number of infractions committed (r ranging from .28 to .36). PPI Factor I showed some evidence of stronger associations with non-aggressive infractions (r = .36), whereas PPI Factor II was the strongest correlate of aggressive misconduct (r = .24). The total and facet scores of the PCL-R were not significantly predictive of any form of institutional misconduct, with effect sizes ranging from negligible to small (median r = .14, r ranging from -.01 to .21).
... In addition, the most common instruments described by training directors in the survey were the MMPI and the MCMI. This finding is very close to that reported by Ogloff and Lyon (1998), who labeled the use of these instruments among Canadian psychologists a "misuse" in the evaluation of psychopathy; they also referred to the "inappropriate reliance... on self-report or projective measures" (p. 411), which include both the MMPI and the MCMI. ...
Given that the duty to protect is now a well established clinical and legal expectation, training in professional psychology should assist students in developing conceptual models for violence risk assessment and management. This report presents a training model incorporating recent advancements in risk assessment (such as the assessment of psychopathy), the need for basic legal understanding, and knowledge of specific risk management strategies. Additionally, academic and internship training programs in Michigan were surveyed by telephone about current training patterns. Preliminary results indicated program strengths in general awareness and training in risk factors. However, the data also suggested a need to formalize a faculty role in risk education, improve the training of students in relevant legal information, and establish coherent conceptual models of dealing with potential patient violence. It is argued that improving training of future professionals in this way will improve clinical practice, reduce legal liability, and improve public safety.
... The construct of psychopathy, typically operationalized by the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare, 1991(Hare, , 2003, is increasingly being used by mental health examiners to inform legal decision-making in an array of contexts and jurisdictions in North America and Europe (Edens & Petrila, in press;Fitch & Ortega, 2000;Hare, Clark, Grann, & Thornton, 2000;Ogloff & Lyon, 1998). Perhaps nowhere is the applied use of the PCL-R more controversial than in U.S. capital murder trials, where psychopathy has been used to support expert testimony that a defendant will be a ''continuing threat to society,'' even if incarcerated for the remainder of his or her life (Bersoff, 2002;Cunningham & Reidy, 1998, 2002Edens, 2001;Edens, Buffington-Vollum, Keilen, Roskamp, & Anthony, 2005;Edens, Petrila, & Buffington-Vollum, 2001). ...
Controversy surrounds the use of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist--Revised (Hare, 1991, 2003) in capital murder cases, where it has been introduced to support prosecution claims that a defendant represents a "continuing threat to society". Although widely presumed to have a prejudicial impact (e.g., American Psychological Association, 2004), little is known about how the lay public reacts to data derived from ostensibly stigmatizing assessment instruments such as the PCL-R. The present study examined the effect of psychopathy data on layperson attitudes by having 203 undergraduates review a capital murder case where the results of the defendant's psychological evaluation were experimentally manipulated. When expert testimony described the defendant as psychopathic, a much larger percentage of participants supported a death sentence (60%) than when testimony indicated that he was psychotic (30%) or not mentally disordered (38%). Interestingly, participant ratings of how psychopathic they perceived the defendant to be--regardless of the testimony condition to which they had been assigned--also predicted support for a death sentence. Given the limited probative value of the PCL-R in capital cases and the prejudicial nature of the effects noted in this study, we recommend that forensic examiners avoid using it in these trials.
... In particular, critics have questioned whether psychopathy can be reliably assessed (Seagrave & Grisso, 2002) or, more to the point, even exists as a coherent personality syndrome during adolescence (Vincent & Hart, 2002). Within criminal justice contexts, psychopathy, as assessed by the Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (PCL-R: Hare, 2003) is viewed as the gold standard in violence risk assessment for adult males (Fulero, 1995) and plays an important role in a variety of assessment and legal contexts (Ogloff & Lyon, 1998). The Psychopathy Checklist—Youth Version (PCL-YV: Forth et al., 2003) is a downward extension of the PCL-R that is designed to assess the interpersonal, affective, antisocial, and behavioral features of psychopathy among youth. ...
Over the last decade rates of violence among adolescent girls have increased. Within high-risk contexts, urgent calls for assessment options have resulted in the extension of adult and male-based instruments to adolescent females in spite of the absence of strong empirical support. The current study evaluates the downward extension of psychopathy within a population of female juvenile offenders (N=125). The convergent and predictive validity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Youth Version (PCL-YV) were evaluated within a structural equation modeling (SEM) framework. Results indicated that while a specific component of psychopathy, deficient affective experience, was related to aggression, the effect was negated once victimization experiences were entered into the models. In addition, PCL-YV scores were not predictive of future offending, while victimization experiences significantly increased the odds of re-offending. Implications for research, policy, and clinical practice are discussed.
... Risk measures developed specifically for youth populations, such as the first version of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY; Borum, Bartel, & Forth, 2002), have incorporated this instrument as well. Such measures reflect the increasing use of psychopathy "outside the lab" to inform both clinical and legal decision-making across an array of contexts (Edens & Petrila, 2006;Ogloff & Lyon, 1998). ...
Although narrative reviews have suggested that "youth psychopathy" is a strong predictor of future crime and violence, to date no quantitative summaries of this literature have been conducted. We meta-analyzed recidivism data for the Psychopathy Checklist measures across 21 non-overlapping samples of male and female juvenile offenders. After removing outliers, psychopathy was significantly associated with general and violent recidivism (r (w)'s of .24 and .25, respectively), but negligibly related to sexual recidivism in the few studies examining this low base rate outcome. Even after eliminating outliers, however, considerable heterogeneity was noted among the effects, with some of this variability being explained by the gender and ethnic composition of the samples. Effect sizes for the small number of female samples available for analysis were mostly small and nonsignificant, and psychopathy was a weaker predictor of violent recidivism among more ethnically heterogeneous samples. In relation to predicting both general and violent recidivism, psychopathy performed comparably to an instrument designed specifically to assess risk, the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (Hoge & Andrews, 2002).
The United States Supreme Court recently found that an insanity defense based upon moral incapacity was not constitutionally required. This decision allows states with a moral incapacity insanity defense, i.e., most states, to abolish their insanity defense. Unfortunately, the Court's opinion was based upon conflated concepts without considering irrationality, traditionally and universally the indispensable core element of insanity standards. This present perspective review attempts to clarify and disambiguate the critical concepts of instrumental and rational capacities as applied to insanity standards. With a proper understanding and application of these distinctly different capacities, insanity standards that at least incorporate rationality should in the future meet the Court's touchstone for determining constitutionally required due process.
This study investigated the sensitivity of boys with psychopathic tendencies to priming using emotion words and facial expressions. This paradigm provided a test between different theories of the development of psychopathy, namely between executive (general or emotion executive) theories and basic emotion processing theories. Boys with psychopathic tendencies were delineated using the Psychopathic Screening Device (Frick and Hare, in press). Fourteen targets (PSD < 23) and seventeen controls (PSD < 15) were drawn from two schools for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Levels of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (DuPaul Rating Scale, DuPaul, Power, Anastopoulos & Reid, 1998), age and IQ (British Picture Vocabulary Scale 11, Dunn, Dunn, Whetton & Burley, 1997) were controlled for. Targets and controls were presented with a computerised slideshow of both faces priming words and words priming faces using a counterbalanced ABBA design. The results were analysed using repeated measures ANOVAs with response time and error rate as the dependent variables. The results indicated that boys with psychopathic tendencies showed significantly greater interference than controls on incongruent trials for faces priming words in the error data. There was a trend for the same finding in the error data for words priming faces. These results were interpreted as supporting the response modulation hypothesis of psychopathic deficit (Patterson & Newman, 1993), that psychopaths have problems processing secondary information once a dominant response set is established. In particular, the difficulty on the emotion priming task may be due to impulsivity and problems with error-monitoring. The roles of the orbito-frontal cortex and the anterior cingulate in error-monitoring are discussed.
The current study is a review of the utility of psychopathy in violence risk assessment. Psychopathy has long been considered one of the most important factors when assessing the risk for future violence in forensic samples. Concerns about tautology have however indicated a need to critically assess the utility of psychopathy measures in risk assessment. We argue that the focus should be as much on the psychopathic personality in the explanation of violent behavior as on the psychopathic personality in the prediction of violent behavior. The main aim of this article is to contrast and discuss the utility of two different ways of conceptualizing and measuring the psychopathic personality, namely through the PCL scales and the CAPP. Existing evidence suggests that the CAPP and PCL are comparably strong predictors of violent behavior, but the CAPP is more dynamic (compared with the static PCL) and aims to measure psychopathic personality rather than past behavior. It is proposed that the CAPP is more useful in explaining violence and should be utilized more in future risk assessments for violence. Implications for future practice are discussed.
Purpose. There is growing evidence that psychopathic (dissocial) personality disorder is associated with violence. The purpose of this paper is to consider the role of psychopathy in clinical assessments of risk for violence.
Arguments. Risk assessments are conducted for the purpose of preventing, not predicting, violence. Yet, most research on risk for violence is conducted and interpreted within the framework of a simplistic prediction paradigm, thus underestimating the practical importance of risk factors. Despite this bias, violence predictions based on psychopathy are only slightly less accurate than predictions that cognitive behavioral therapy will reduce symptoms of depression or cardiac bypass surgery will reduce angina pain; and more accurate than predictions that smaller class sizes will lead to improved academic achievement or cardiac bypass surgery will reduce mortality.
Conclusion. Information about psychopathy can be used to make relatively accurate predictions of violence. Of course, decisions concerning if and how such information should be used are another matter. The paper concludes with recommendations concerning the appropriate role of psychopathy in violence risk assessments and avenues for future research.
Stalking encompasses a wide range of behavioral patterns, risk factors, interpersonal dynamics, and dangerousness. To account for these diverse phenomena, we propose that stalking behavior is best conceptualized by a dynamic interaction of attachment styles and psychodynamic phenomena. This paper articulates a model that explains stalking behavior within the framework of attachment theory. Four prototypical configurations of stalkers and their victims are developed. Each configuration is discussed in terms of a pattern of internal representations, affective constellations, combinations of aggression and narcissism, and potential for future violence. The four configurations proposed here are maintained through stalkers' over ideational linkage fantasies and projective identifications, which range from shame-prone and needy idealization to malevolent torment of the victim. Our model arrays erotomanic, jealous, and persecutory attachments along a continuum of increasingly paranoid and pathological identifications. We argue that these prototypical attachment configurations provide a theoretically driven means of differentiating phases of stalking, and as such provide useful leads in the empirical study and clinical assessment, treatment, and management of stalkers.
Several clinical-behavioral and self-report measures of psychopathy were compared in a sample of 274 male prison inmates. The assessment procedures included global clinical ratings, a 22-item checklist, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III; American Psychiatric Association, 1980) criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD), a self-report version of the 22-item checklist, the Socialization scale of the California Psychological Inventory, and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Agreement among the various assessment procedures was evaluated with correlational analyses, discriminant function analyses, and kappa coefficients of diagnostic agreement. There was much stronger agreement among the clinical-behavioral measures (ratings, checklist, and DSM-III) than there was among the self-report measures. Agreement between these two measurement domains was, with few exceptions, rather poor.
Although psychology had a brief—and rather dramatic—foray into the legal system early in this century, it was only after World War II that psychology started to systematically permeate the legal system. Building on the interest psychologists and other social scientists had on the law, education and training in the areas of psychology and law/criminal justice has undergone considerable growth and development over the past two decades. The authors discuss the early developments and current models of this education and training. Implications of the increased interest and training in psychology and law/criminal justice, and directions for future developments in these areas, also are explored.
Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses were used to examine the criminal histories of male psychopaths and nonpsychopaths. Dependent variables included time spent in prison and conviction rates during each 5-year period between the ages of 16–45 years. Both types of analysis indicated that the criminal activities of nonpsychopaths were relatively constant over the years, whereas those of psychopaths remained high until around age 40, after which they declined dramatically. Nevertheless, more than half of the subjects in each group still received at least one conviction after age 40. The results are consistent with clinical impressions that some psychopaths tend to "burn out" in middle age. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Since most laws are enacted to regulate behavior, the law must make various assumptions about the way people act and how those actions can be controlled. The social scientific knowledge and skills of psychologists have many broad applications to the law. However, the full potential of law and psychology has not yet been realized in Canada. There are no joint law and psychology graduate programs in Canada, and a majority of the current psychological research has been narrowly focused on forensic issues. There is a need for increased training and research in this area to address unique Canadian issues and to avoid continued dependence on American psycholegal scholars. (French abstract) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
The violent recidivism rates of 169 adult male mentally disordered offenders released from a maximum security psychiatric hospital were compared over an average 10-year follow-up period. Forty percent of the total and 77% of the psychopaths (as defined by the Psychopathy Checklist) committed a violent offense. It was possible to predict outcome with considerable accuracy using combinations of childhood history, adult history, index offense, and institutional or program variables. However, the Psychopathy Checklist alone performed at least as well as any combination of variables and also improved upon the prediction based on criminal history variables. Psychopaths continued to recidivate at a higher rate than nonpsychopaths even beyond age 40.
Psychopaths present serious problems for the criminal justice system because they are responsible for many serious crimes
and appear to be very resistant to treatment. The present study was a retrospective evaluation of the efficacy of a maximum
security therapeutic community program in reducing recidivism among mentally disordered offenders, some of whom were psychopaths.
The study employed a matched group, quasiexperimental design. The results showed that, compared to no program (in most cases
prison), treatment was associated with lower recidivism (especially violent recidivism) for nonpsychopaths and higher violent
recidivism for psychopaths. The clinical and research utility of Hare's Psychopathy Checklist was strongly supported.
The predictive validity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) was compared with 3 actuarial risk scales in a sample of 81 offenders followed for a maximum of 67 months (average of 30 months). The recommittal or general recidivism rate for the entire sample was 57% (40% for nonpsychopaths, 51.2% for a mixed group, and 85% for psychopaths). The violent reoffense rate was 10% for the sample (nonpsychopaths 0%, mixed 7.3%, psychopaths 25%). All instruments were significantly correlated with general recidivism; however, the PCL-R was the best predictor of violent recidivism. Compared to the actuarial scales, the PCL-R had a higher predictive efficiency (Relative Improvement Over Chance (RIOC)) and yielded fewer decision errors. Most importantly, Factor 1 was a better predictor of violent recidivism than Factor 2, suggesting that the trait construct of psychopathy makes a unique contribution to the prediction of violent recidivism.
Although the insanity defense is used infrequently, it has received significant attention from legal and mental health professionals. In this article, we review the historical development of insanity defense standards and describe the standards currently employed in the United States. We present a model for evaluating a defendant's mental nonresponsibility, and we briefly discuss the legal standards and procedures for the assessment of insanity acquittees for release. Throughout the article, we discuss some scientific, ethical, and jurisprudential issues associated with the insanity defense and nonresponsibility evaluations.
One possible explanation for previous findings of abnormal linguistic processing in psychopaths is that they are less lateralized for verbal processes. This study tests the hypothesis that adolescent psychopaths show evidence of reduced lateralization on a verbal dichotic listening task. Four self-report and behavioral measures of psychopathy were used to define psychopathy using cluster analytic techniques in 40 juvenile offenders aged 13 to 18 years. Psychopaths were found to have reduced ear asymmetries relative to nonpsychopaths, a result indicating reduced lateralization for verbal material. The effect does not appear to be mediated by group differences in age, ethnic background, IQ, overall performance, left-handedness, selective attention to one ear, or interhemispheric transfer deficits. This result suggests that the previous finding by Hare and McPherson is robust, provides some preliminary validity for the assessment of psychopathy before age 18, and indicates initial support for the utility of cluster analytic techniques in the assessment of psychopathy.
Factor analysis of a measure of psychopathy was conducted in a sample of 95 clinic-referred children between the ages of 6 and 13 years. These analyses revealed 2 dimensions of behavior, one associated with impulsivity and conduct problems (I/CP) and one associated with the interpersonal and motivational aspects of psychopathy (callous/unemotional: CU). In a subset of this sample (n = 64), analyses indicated that scores on the I/CP factor were highly associated with traditional measures of conduct problems. In contrast, scores derived from the CU factor were only moderately associated with measures of conduct problems and exhibited a different pattern of associations on several criteria that have been associated with psychopathy (e.g., sensation seeking) or childhood antisocial behavior (e.g., low intelligence, poor school achievement, and anxiety). These analyses suggest that psychopathic personality features and conduct problems are independent, yet interacting, constructs in children, analogous to findings in the adult literature.
In this article, the author highlights the need for early intervention for chronic offenders. He reviews evidence suggesting that children who manifest symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity-attention problems (HIA) and conduct problems (CP) are at the greatest risk for chronic offending. He reviews existing theories of the relations among constructs: (a) HIA increases risk in those already at risk and (b) HIA leads to symptoms of CP. In addition, he advances a third theory that children with symptoms of HIA and CP are afflicted with a virulent strain of conduct disorder best described as fledgling psychopathy. The author discusses treatment implications and supporting evidence for each model. Finally, he recommends that the subtype theory receive further consideration and examination.
Presents guidelines for ethical conduct to aid forensic psychologists when assisting courts, parties to legal proceedings, correctional and forensic mental health facilities, and legislative agencies. Among the issues that the guidelines touch on are professional responsibility, competence, relationships, confidentiality, and procedures.
Mental Disability Law: Civil and Criminal is a logically organized and readable discussion of the entire body of law affecting the mentally disabled. It provides thoughtful answers to practically every research, counseling or litigation problem that could conceivably arise in this area. Each chapter of this treatise contains practical checklists and commentary to highlight and clarify case authority. Extensively annotated, it contains a table of cases and cites hundreds of authoritative secondary sources.
Mental Disability Law: Civil and Criminal was released in a new Third Edition in 2016, and for the first time in a 3-binder loose-leaf format. Beginning with this edition, separate cumulative supplements will no longer be published. To improve ease of use, annual revisions and updates can now be integrated immediately into the main text. Of particular note in the new Third Edition, there are greatly expanded chapters on sex offender laws and on the Americans with Disabilities Act.
- See more at: http://www.lexisnexis.com/store/catalog/booktemplate/productdetail.jsp?pageName=relatedProducts&prodId=7583#sthash.o47FyYRg.dpuf
Psychopaths ace capable of behavior so hedonistic, callous, irresponsible, and self-defeating that it is easy to conclude that they must be brain damaged, insane, or both. Indeed, the most influential book on the clinical nature of psychopaths has the title “The mask of sanity” (Cleckley, 1976). While recognizing that psychiatric and legal criteria of insanity do not apply to psychopaths, Cleckley nevertheless thought that their behavior must be the surface manifestation of a profound underlying disturbance in brain function. We will present some recent data suggesting that this “disturbance” is related to the way in which language is processed, organized, and understood by psychopaths, and to a possible dissociation between the semantic and affective components of language.
The psychopath presents a number of issues for the legal system, in particular the question of criminal responsibility. Specifically, is psychopathy a condition which should relieve a criminal defendant of responsibility for his actions? Part II of this Comment describes the characteristics of psychopathy so the reader will have a better understanding of the type of individual in question. In addition, Part II presents the current psychiatric criteria for labeling an individual a psychopath. Part III of this Comment presents the prominent psychiatric view that psychopaths by virtue of their diagnosis should be exonerated from criminal liability. This view has evolved out of the idea that psychopathy is a condition that results from certain causal factors, and in Part III the biological and psychological explanations for the causes of psychopathy are examined. Further, a response is made to the view that where causal agents can be identified for behavior, the defendant should be legally excused for his or her actions. Since all behavior is in some sense "caused," this view cannot substantiate excusing a person merely because he or she has a diagnosable mental illness. Rather, some other basis for excuse must be discovered. Part IV of this Comment discusses the most logical basis for excusing those with diagnosable mental illnesses. The basis for the excuse must be tied to the reasons most "normal" people are held criminally responsible for their actions. Yet, in Part V, this Comment demonstrates that psychopathy itself is not a proper subject for the insanity defense. Thus, the American Law Institute was perfectly correct in trying to exclude individuals diagnosed as psychopaths from presenting evidence of their antisocial behavior as the sole basis for relief from criminal liability.
The Georgia Supreme Court reemphasized recently its view of the constitutional importance of the appellate review process. The purpose of this study was to assess the manner in which the Georgia Supreme Court has actually performed this function, particularly with respect to sixty-eight death sentence cases which the court reviewed and affirmed between 1973 and 1979.
A Therapeutic Community (TC) treatment program for adult male offenders is summarized and treatment outcome data are discussed. Psychopaths showed less clinical improvement, displayed lower levels of motivation and were discharged from the program earlier than non-psychopaths. There were significant positive treatment effects for the non-psychopaths and a mixed group. Psychopathy Checklist scores (Hare, 1985) consistently postdict and predict treatment outcome and attrition from the program.
Although the evolution of psychopathy as a formal clinical disorder began more than a century ago, it is only recently that scientifically sound psychometric procedures for its assessment have become available. The result has been a sharp increase in theoretically meaningful and replicable research findings, both in applied settings and in the laboratory. The construct of psychopathy is proving to be particularly useful in the criminal justice system, where it has important implications for sentencing, diversion, placement, and treatment options and for the assessment of risk for recidivism and violence. Although the etiology of the predatory, cold-blooded nature of psychopathy remains obscure, the theories and methods of cognitive neuroscience and behavioral genetics promise to greatly increase our understanding of this disorder.
In its recent decision in R. v Canons Park Mental Health Review Tribunal, ex parte A [1994], the Court of Appeal addressed the meaning of the treatability test and its application in the context of Part V of the Mental Health Act 1983 to patients detained under the legal category of ‘psychopathic disorder’. This article considers the decision and that of the Divisional Court, which it reversed, together with its legal and clinical implications.
[examines] questions concerning the admissibility of expert testimony based on the MMPI-2, and the extent to which the judge or jury finds that evidence compelling in arriving at a decision / [discusses] the legal basis for admitting expert psychological testimony, including the role of psychological testing in expert testimony / after reviewing the admissibility of expert psychological testimony, the discussion turns to an analysis of the extent to which judges and juries have, or have not, relied on the MMPI-2 results to address a variety of issues in the legal system / information will be addressed regarding the legal standing of psychological assessment data in general, and the utility of the MMPI-2 in particular (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Presents the American Psychological Association's Ethics Code. The document consists of an introduction, a preamble, 6 general principles, and specific standards and rules for conduct by psychologists. Topics covered by the standards include (1) General Standards, (2) Evaluation, Assessment or Intervention, (3) Advertising and Other Public Statements, (4) Therapy, (5) Privacy and Confidentiality, (6) Teaching, Training Supervision, Research, and Publishing, (7) Forensic Activities, and (8) Resolving Ethical Issues. (0 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
provide an overview of recent research on the association between psychopathy and criminal behavior across much of the life span
the definition and assessment of psychopathy / the Revised Psychopathy Checklist (PCL–R) / psychopathy and crime / recidivism and the prediction of violent behavior / criminal history of psychopaths / assessment of psychopathy as a function of age (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
We tested the hypothesis that psychopathy is associated with abnormal processing of affective verbal material. Criminal psychopaths and nonpsychopaths, defined by the Psychopathy Checklist, performed a lexical decision task ("Is it a word or not?") while we recorded reaction time and event-related potentials in response to letter-strings consisting of affective and neutral words and pronounceable nonwords. On the assumption that they do not make efficient use of affective information, our primary prediction was that psychopaths would show less behavioral and event-related potential differentiation between affective and neutral words than would nonpsychopaths. The results were in accordance with this prediction. The lexical decisions of nonpsychopaths were significantly faster, and relevant event-related potential components were significantly larger, to affective words than to neutral words. In sharp contrast, psychopaths failed to show reaction time facilitation or larger amplitude event-related potentials to affective words. We suggest that psychopaths extract less information from affective words than do other individuals. Possible implications of these and related findings for understanding the behavior of psychopaths are discussed.
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between psychopathy as measured by The Revised Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) and delinquent behaviors, conduct disorder, and personality disorders in psychiatrically hospitalized adolescents.
Thirty adolescent inpatients were assessed for psychopathy, delinquent behaviors, DSM-III-R Axis I disorders, and personality disorders using the Revised Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R), the Diagnostic Interview for Children and Adolescents (DICA-R), and the Structured Interview for DSM-III-R Personality Disorders (SIDP-R).
Significant relationships were noted between elevated PCL-R psychopathy scores and delinquent behaviors, conduct disorder, and narcissistic personality disorder.
The validity of the PCL-R as a measure of psychopathy in adolescence was supported. Longitudinal studies are needed to clarify the clinical application of the PCL-R to adolescent populations.
Despite a long history of interest in, and criticism of, the ability of mental health professionals to assess and predict violence, there have been few efforts to develop or evaluate interventions to improve decision making in this area. This article provides a brief overview of recent research developments on violence risk. Drawing on these advances, 3 recommendation are outlined for improving the clinical practice of risk assessment: (a) to improve assessment technology, (b) to develop clinical practice guidelines, and (c) to develop training programs and curricula.
The earliest context in which madness is treated as an excuse for crime is Justinian's Digest. The Christian church brought this feature of Roman law to pre-Norman England. Madmen were probably not regarded as triable by ordeal, but were simply left to be guarded by their kinsfolk. When trial by ordeal was abandoned, and juries had to determine guilt, juries were at first expected to find madmen guilty but refer their cases to the king for pardon. It was not until about 1500 that juries seem to have begun to acquit on grounds of insanity. The reasoning varied: madmen were "punished enough by their madness"; they "lacked the will to harm"; they could not "tell good from evil." How strictly the tests of insanity were applied depended on the crime. The rejections of the defense that figured in the State Trials series were not typical, but gave historians the impression that the defense hardly ever succeeded before Hadfield's trial in 1800. In fact, as the Old Bailey Sessions Papers show, it often succeeded in the eighteenth century. Nor was this the result of empire building by the medical professions. Laymen's evidence was often accepted without any testimony by mad-doctors.
United States, 376 A
- Dyas V
A mental health profile of federally sentenced offenders
- Correctional Service of Canada
United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)
- Frye V
Commentary on antisocial personality disorder: The DSM-IV field trial
- R D Hare
- S D Hart
- RD Hare
Empirical research and the insanity defense: How much do we really know?
- J R P Ogloff
- A Schweighofer
- S Turnbull
- K Whittemore
- JRP Ogloff
(in press) Legal evidence and expert testimony A legal handbook for the helping profession
- J R P Ogloff
- N H Polvi
Criminal and institutional behaviors of psychopaths (Programs branch users report) Ottawa: Ministry of the Solicitor-General of Canada
- S Wong
The insanity defense before
- N Walker
Legal evidence and expert testimony
- J R P Ogloff
- N H Polvi
A legal handbook for the helping profession
- J R P Ogloff
- N H Polvi
Mental disability law: Civil and criminal
- M L Perlin
- ML Perlin
Deviant children grow up
- L N Robbins
- LN Robbins
Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists
- American Psychological Association
London: Printed for W
- W Blackstone