Required Readings: Bartol C R, Bartol A 2017 Criminal Behavi

Required Readingsbartol C R Bartol A 2017criminal Behavior

Consider how the measurement of psychopathy originated and the characteristics measured. Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 16 minutes. Accessible player --Downloads--Download Video w/CCDownload AudioDownload Transcript Discussion: Psychopathy Psychopathy is an important and complex topic of study in criminal behavior, especially as the definitions associated with psychopathy and associated terms are not concrete.

As students of criminal behavior, you are likely to encounter multiple definitions and uses of the word psychopath, as well as terms that are sometimes substituted for it, such as criminal psychopath, antisocial personality disorder, and dissocial psychopaths. Bartol and Bartol (2017) explain that the “true” psychopath, also known as the criminal psychopath, focuses on individuals who engage in repetitive antisocial or criminal behavior. Antisocial personality disorder is similar to the criminal psychopath; however, it only includes behavioral indicators and disregards the neurological and cognitive aspects. Bartol and Bartol (2017) continue to clarify that dissocial psychopaths are known for their aggressive, antisocial behavior, which they have learned from their subculture (p. 179). Behaviors associated with psychopathic personalities include: repeat offenses (both violent and nonviolent) without concern for consequences, manipulation that is often charming in nature, and strong resistance to treatment. Psychopathy does not appear as a mental disorder in the DSM-IV-TR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV Text Revision), but it is closely related to antisocial personality disorder, which is a diagnostic category in the DSM-IV-TR. This nuance promotes continued debate about whether psychopathy should be classified as a mental disorder—a debate that has extreme significance because how psychopathy is classified has important consequences for both perpetrators and victims of crime.

Paper For Above instruction

Psychopathy, a term often encountered in criminal psychology, continues to evoke debate regarding its classification as a mental disorder. This discussion explores whether psychopathy should be regarded as a mental illness, grounded in the understanding of its origins, characteristics, and implications. I argue that psychopathy should indeed be classified as a mental disorder, given its neurological and psychological underpinnings, which distinguish it from purely behavioral disorders. The recognition of psychopathy as a mental disorder could influence criminal justice policies and treatment approaches, ultimately affecting outcomes for offenders and society.

Historically, the measurement of psychopathy originated from the work of Hervey Cleckley in the 1940s, who identified consistent personality traits among offenders through his seminal work, “The Mask of Sanity” (Cleckley, 1941). Cleckley's criteria included superficial charm, lack of remorse, and emotional insensitivity—features that he noted were indicative of underlying neurological deficits. Later, the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), developed by Robert Hare in the 1980s, operationalized psychopathy as a measurable construct grounded in clinical and criminal populations (Hare, 1991). The PCL-R assesses traits such as manipulativeness, lack of empathy, impulsivity, and superficial charm, aligning with the original conceptualizations but offering a standardized way to quantify psychopathic features.

The characteristics measured in psychopathy reflect both behavioral and cognitive-neurological components. Research shows that individuals with psychopathic traits often exhibit reduced activity in the amygdala and prefrontal cortex—areas associated with emotional regulation and decision-making (Blair, 2008). These neurological deficits underpin many of the core traits of psychopathy, such as diminished fear response, lack of empathy, and impulsivity. Consequently, these traits are more consistent with a neurodevelopmental disorder rather than a purely behavioral or moral failing.

This neurobiological perspective supports classifying psychopathy as a mental disorder. Unlike antisocial personality disorder, which is based solely on observable behaviors, psychopathy incorporates neurological deficits that influence behavior. This distinction is critical because it shifts the perception of psychopathy from a moral or character flaw to a complex mental condition with biological underpinnings. Recognizing psychopathy as a mental disorder aligns with the criteria outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), which defines mental disorders as syndromes characterized by clinically significant disturbances in cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior linked to underlying biological factors (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

Classifying psychopathy as a mental disorder has several important implications. Firstly, it influences criminal justice policies, potentially supporting alternative sentencing or treatment options designed to address underlying neurological deficits rather than solely punitive measures. For example, individuals diagnosed with psychopathy may benefit from specific behavioral interventions targeting emotional and cognitive processing (Salekin, 2008). Additionally, it affects risk assessment procedures; understanding psychic deficits can improve predictions of recidivism and inform parole decisions (Harris et al., 2011).

However, some critics argue that categorizing psychopathy as a mental disorder could lead to ethical concerns, such as determinism or stigmatization. Nonetheless, acknowledging the neurobiological basis of psychopathy emphasizes that such individuals may not have complete control over their behaviors, which has important implications for their treatment and management (Duwe, 2012). Moreover, classifying psychopathy as a mental disorder could de-stigmatize the condition by framing it within a medical context, potentially fostering more compassionate therapeutic strategies instead of solely punitive responses.

In conclusion, the classification of psychopathy as a mental disorder is justified based on its neurobiological foundations, distinctive traits, and the potential for improved treatment and risk management. Recognizing psychopathy in this way emphasizes its complex, medical nature and opens pathways for interventions that could mitigate dangerous behaviors, thereby benefiting society and the individuals involved.

References

• American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).
• Blair, R. J. R. (2008). Psychopathy and affective processing. In D. J. Cooke, A. Forth, & R. D. Hare (Eds.), Psychopathy: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 135-154). Guilford Press.
• Cleckley, H. (1941). The Mask of Sanity. Mosby.
• Duwe, G. (2012). Predicting violence: Stop and frisk, racial profiling, and the limits of actuarial risk assessment. Punishment & Society, 14(4), 429–452.
• Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Multi-Health Systems.
• Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (2011). Treatment considerations in psychopathy. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 11(2), 113–126.
• Salekin, R. T. (2008). Psychopathy and psychopathic traits in youth. In M. C. Fetzer (Ed.), The Handbook of Psychopathy (pp. 345-370). Guilford Press.