Share    Print   Save    Become a Fan



A Look at the Psychopath
By Torwoli Dzuali   
Rated "G" by the Author.
Last edited: Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Posted: Monday, January 30, 2006

An Introduction to Psychopathy ...

A Look at the Psychopath

            Violent assaults, rape, torture, mutilations and cold blooded murders: crimes which never fail to rattle the reins of public consciousness. Somewhere on the quiet streets of a suburban neigbourhood, a twelve year old child is abducted and brutally raped. Her mangled body surfaces a few days later in the muddy waters of a nearby creek. Her killer? – Thirty five year old Tom Gates[1]. Society looks at someone like Tom, and is utterly horrified. What, if anything, they wonder, could have created such a monster - how is anyone even capable of committing such acts upon another human being? Like the majority of other individuals who commit such crimes, Tom falls under the classification of a psychopath. It is a term frequently used in everyday language “oh he is such a psycho!”, yet few understand its clinical definition. The term psychopath derives from the Greek word psyche meaning “mind” and pathos “disease”. This literal translation gives the impression of insanity, or psychoticism, however most psychopaths are not thought to be mentally ill. They do not suffer from delusions, hallucinations nor the severe psychological symptoms characteristic of most other mental ailments.  Rather, they are fully functioning, very much in touch with reality and aware of their actions. Their choices are made rationally and their behaviour exercised as a result of their own free will (Hare, 1993).

Psychopaths come in all shapes, sizes, races, ages and genders; they are everyday people who may hold jobs, have children, volunteer at the local church or donate to charitable causes. There are no striking features to distinguish a psychopath from any other person, and often assimilation within the general population can be achieved with ease. It would be incorrect to assume, therefore, that all psychopathic individuals are locked away behind bars. Many are able to avoid the criminal justice system, while others may only ever be charged with minor offences which carry less weight within the judicial system. So much attention surrounds individuals like Tom, - there are movies produced, books written, and extensive media coverage of their crimes, however public curiosity fails to grasp a true understanding of the one factor that draws the separation between such people and the rest of society – their psychopathic personalities. This paper will seek to shed some light the topic, taking a comprehensive look at the psychopathic classification, its origins and its legal as well as social implications. 

The Psychopathy Checklist

Prior to 1980, there existed no standard measure for the diagnosis of psychopathy. Identification of the condition was fairly random and subject to different classification systems. In 1980, Robert Hare developed the Psychopathy Checklist, the first tool of its kind which was able to provide comprehensive, reliable and valid assessments of psychopathy among forensic and correctional populations. Five years later, the tool was revised, and Hare’s newer version the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, became and remains the leading authority in the diagnosis of psychopathy. The PCL-R measures psychopathy on a forty-point scale, using interviews and a range of collateral information (e.g. court transcripts, police reports, psychiatric assessments, victim-impact statements,  self-report questionnaires etc) to obtain a score relevant to twenty categories. Each category represents a specific trait and the individual is graded on a scale of zero to two. A zero implies that the individual does not appear to have the trait at all; a one that he/she does have it to some degree and a two indicates a definite manifestation of the trait. The highest score on the PCL-R is 40, with a clinical diagnosis of psychopathy resulting for those who score between 30 and 40 (Ramsland, 1998).

Psychopathy is a personality disorder, and it can be differentiated from other such disorders on the basis of particular interpersonal, affective and behavioural symptoms. (Hart et al., 1992). The PCL-R identifies these symptoms, providing an overall profile of the psychopathic individual. Below is a summary of some of these symptoms: twelve of the most important, which combined provide an illustrative portrait of the psychopathic personality. It must be stressed, however, that use of the PCL-R is limited to trained professionals, and by no means should the following be used to make a diagnosis on oneself or on others.

Interpersonal Traits

1. Glib and Superficial

Psychopaths can often come across as very charming, intelligent and articulate individuals. They are acutely aware of what people find appealing and will work to present themselves in such favourable ways. They may tell countless stories about their personal achievements or over indulge someone else with pleasant compliments. Some people are able to detect the psychopath’s facade, while others, who may rather be drawn to it, are not.

2. Egocentric and Grandiose

Narcissism is another trait common to psychopaths. They are greatly self-centered and seem to be under the impression that everything and everyone else revolves around them. They feel superior to the rest of society and feel justified in violating social rules. As one stated; "It's not that I don't follow the law, I follow my own laws. I never violate my own rules [. . .] looking out for number one." (Hare, 1993: 38). Arrogant, opinionated, controlling, boastful, self-assured and cocky – are all words which fit the persona of the psychopath.

3.  Deceitful and Manipulative

Lies, lies, and more lies – one of the psychopath’s greatest talents. He/she will lie with such conviction that one is left wondering if he/she is even aware of his/her own untruthfulness. Psychopaths will carry on with their deception, even when they know that their audience is aware of the true facts. They have very little concern for being caught, and even when confronted with the truth, they remain adamant and just simply alter the details of their story.

Affective Traits

4. Lack of Remorse or Guilt

A man who was stabbed during a robbery attempt endured injuries which landed him in hospital for three months. When asked if he had any regrets, the psychopathic individual who had stabbed this man responded "Get real! He spends a few months in a hospital and I rot here [prison]. I cut him up a bit, but if I wanted to kill him I would have slit his throat. That's the kind of guy I am; I gave him a break." (Hare, 1993: 41). Another inmate convicted of murder (which ensued from his refusal to pay a bar tab) said of his victim: "The guy only had himself to blame, anybody could have seen I was in a rotten mood that night. What did he want to go and bother me for?" He continued, "Anyway, the guy never suffered. Knife wounds to an artery are the easiest way to go." (Hare, 1993: 42). Such statements are shocking to the average person, but it is with such casualness and callousness that psychopaths approach their crimes. In their own minds they are able to rationalize their behaviour and therefore feel no remorse for the pain and destruction they may have caused in the lives of others.

5. Lack of Empathy

Empathy is the ability to step into the mental and emotional experiences of another person. The psychopaths’ inability to ‘walk in the shoes’ of others, is closely related to their many other traits e.g. their egocentricity, lack of remorse, shallow emotions, and deceitfulness (Hare, 1993). Being unable to feel nor even imagine the experiences of other human beings reduces them to nothing more than objects; it is easy to kick around and abuse an object when one cannot imagine it as being in any pain – such is the experience of the psychopath.

6. Shallow Emotions

Not only are psychopaths unable to empathize, but they appear to be deficient in the depth and range of the emotions they are able experience. Some studies have indicated physiological differences in the emotional experiences of psychopaths and other people (Ogloff &Wong, 1990). Their experience, it seems, is largely cognitive in nature, void of the physiological sensations most other people undergo (Hare, 1993). I.e. the emotion is just a label, not a feeling. “There are emotions -- a whole spectrum of them -- that I know only through words, through reading and in my immature imagination. I can imagine I feel these emotions (know, therefore, what they are), but I do not.” (Abbot, 1981: 13)

– said Jack Abbott, better known for his publication “In the Belly of the Beast”, than the murders he committed. This emotional vacuity may result in a general confusion as to which emotions are what; the psychopath for example may “equate love with sexual arousal, sadness with frustration, and anger with irritability”. (Hare, 1993: 52).

Behavioural Traits

7. Impulsivity

For the psychopath, life is about the here and the now; they ‘live for the moment’, seeking instant gratification and giving very little thought to the possible consequences of their actions. “Until I got caught or shot to death by the police or something like that, I would have kept on killing” said one Gary Gilmore (convicted in Texas for the murder of two men). “I wasn’t thinking, I wasn’t planning, I was just doing [. . .] murder vents rage. The murders were without reason. Don’t try to understand murder by using reason.” (Hare, 1993: 60)

8. Need for excitement / prone to boredom

Everyone gets bored, and everyone occasionally seeks some level of excitement in their lives, but for the psychopath this need for stimulation is so excessive that it reaches the point of dysfunction. They will deliberately engage in activities, often criminal and dangerous, just for the thrill of a ‘rush’.

 9. Poor behavioral controls

The inhibitory controls that manage to regulate most human behaviours appear to be significantly weak in psychopathic individuals. The slightest provocation: a minor argument, criticism, frustration or just about anything can result in outright rage and aggression. They respond disproportionately to upsetting situations, but will view their outbursts as reasonable and justified.

10. Lack of responsibility

Psychopaths lack responsibility and reliability in almost everything they do. They have no understanding (or just do not care) of concepts such as commitment, obligation or rules and put simply – cannot be counted on for anything. They will make and break promises, carry out callous acts, regardless of the implications for others, and refuse ownership of their actions (it is always someone else’s fault: their parents, society or ‘the system’).

 11. Early (juvenile) behavioural problems

When you look into the psychopath’s childhood there are often many ‘red flag’ behavioural problems. According to Hare, these behaviours may include “persistent lying, cheating, theft, fire setting, truancy, class disruption, substance abuse, vandalism, violence, bullying, running away and precocious sexuality”(Hare, 1993: 66). It is true that many non-psychopathic children also have these problems, but it is the severity and extensiveness of the psychopaths’ that makes them stand out. Extreme cruelty to animals is also usually another sign of serious emotional problems.

12. Adult antisocial behavior

A key component of the psychopathic profile is their antisocial personality. Social norms, standards and rules are of no importance to the psychopath; they do as they please, when they please. Their actions may not always be ‘criminal’, but will tend to deviate from what is socially accepted, e.g. engagement in activities which may not be illegal, but that most would consider immoral.

Psychopath, Sociopath or Antisocial Personality Disorder?

            There exists much confusion over the understanding and interchangeable use of the terms psychopathy, sociopathy, and antisocial personality disorder. Between psychopathy and sociopathy, it seems that the use of one term over the other boils down only to the user’s personal perspective on the origins of the pathology. Individuals believing the syndrome to be “forged entirely by social forces and early experiences will prefer the term sociopath, whereas those who feel that psychological, biological, and genetic factors also contribute to development of the syndrome generally use the term psychopath” (Hare, 1993: 24). It is not uncommon therefore, for the same individual to undergo two separate assessments, and have one expert diagnose sociopathy, while the other diagnoses psychopathy for the very same symptoms. (Hare, 1993). Another factor behind the interchangeable use of the terms psychopath and sociopath, is a preference to sometimes use the later over the former in order to avoid confusion with psychotism or insanity (Pitchford, 2001). Psychopaths, as stated above, are not mentally ill; and as crazy or deranged as their crimes may appear, it is important to stress their sanity and dispel any misconceptions which may alleviate responsibility for their actions.

            Another classification thought to be synonymous with psychopathy is antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). But whereas the distinction between psychopathy and sociopathy is (thought to be) negligible that between psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder is more significant. ASPD, unlike psychopathy, is formally recognized as a mental disorder by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). The diagnostic criteria for ASPD, “indicates that there must be a pattern of disregard for the rights of others evident before the age of 15. This disregard must be manifest by impulsivity, aggressiveness, repeated lying for personal pleasure or profit, reckless behavior, consistent irresponsibility, or lack of remorse for hurting others. To be diagnosed with ASPD the patient must be at least 18 years old and there must be evidence of a conduct disorder before 15 years of age.” (Caverly, 2000). However, there remains much controversy over these criteria, as the very definition of ASPD has been changed consistently throughout the years and remains quite ambiguous.

            A diagnosis of ASPD places great emphasis on the behavioural aspects, but not the affective and interpersonal characteristics of the individual. Psychopathy, on the other hand, gives great consideration to both the antisocial behavioural characteristics and the personality traits of the individual (Hare, 1996). In many ways the psychopath may be viewed as having an extreme more advanced form of ASPD, and while most psychopaths would also meet the criteria for ASPD, most individuals diagnosed with ASPD, are not necessarily psychopaths. It follows that most convicted criminals (65-75%) are people with ASPD, but few of them are actual psychopaths (O'Connor, 2004). For both mental health and criminal justice purposes it is important to establish a clear and accepted distinction between psychopathy and ASPD. Treatment depends upon accurate diagnoses, as does the sentencing of convicted offenders. For example, whereas those with ASPD often ‘grow out’ of their criminal tendencies, psychopathic individuals are known to have very high rates of recidivism (O’Connor, 2004); such factors will be of great importance when decisions are made regarding the placement of an offender. In the United States, for example, where psychopathy is mostly considered as an aggravating rather than mitigating circumstance “an offender convicted of first-degree murder and diagnosed as a psychopath is likely to receive the death penalty on the grounds that psychopaths are cold-blooded, remorseless, untreatable and almost certain to re-offend. But many of the killers on death row were, and continue to be, mistakenly referred to as psychopaths on the basis of DSM-III, DSM-III-R or DSM-IV criteria for ASPD” (Hare, 1996). With the diagnosis of psychopathy having such serious implications, it is imperative that all diagnostic ambiguity be cleared and that efficient structures are put in place to meet the needs of victims, offenders and society at large.

Possible Causes of Psychopathy

            There are many theories which seek to offer some kind of explanation as to the likely causes of psychopathy. Most center around biological and environmental factors.

People believing psychopaths to be ‘products of their environment’ point to the life histories that many psychopaths seem to share. Their pasts are often characterized by dysfunctional family structures, parental neglect and abuse, emotional deprivation, inconsistent disciplinary techniques, antisocial values, violent home life and adverse neighbourhoods (Martens, 2000). With so many psychopathic individuals sharing similar backgrounds it is easy to jump to the conclusion that early childhood trauma and adverse life experiences are responsible for the creation of a psychopathic personality. Indeed these factors are likely to contribute to emotional, interpersonal and behavioural problems; e.g. low self-esteem, poor social skills, violent conflict resolution etc, but does this necessarily suggest a causal link to the development of psychopathy? Environmental circumstances experienced throughout one’s life may in fact be contributory, but to argue for absolute causation would be without merit. The majority of psychopaths may have been exposed to the same environmental conditions, as those mentioned above, but what of the several million other people who share similar childhoods and backgrounds, but are not psychopaths? Or how about those psychopaths who come from good, stable, and secure environments? If these factors cause psychopathy then every single person who has ever been abused, neglected, or undergone any kind of traumatic event in life, must also develop psychopathy. With psychopaths making up only about 1 % of the population (Semrau & Gale, 2002), that is clearly not the case. Environmental factors alone, therefore, cannot fully account for psychopathic behaviour.

            On the biological side there have been several studies indicating that genetics and physiological factors may contribute to the creation of a psychopath. Firstly there is the possibility of abnormal brain development and dysfunction. 30-38% of psychopaths display abnormal wave patterns in areas of the brain responsible for higher functioning (Johnson, 1999). “After I’m dead, they’re going to open up my head and find that just like we’ve been saying a part of my brain is black, dry and dead”, said Bobby Joe Long (Ramsland, 1998) - sentenced to death for raping fifty women and killing nine . Some experts speculate that ‘faulty wiring’ or early damage to areas such as the hypothalamus, limbic brain, temporal and frontal lobes, may play a role in creating some of the psychopathic symptoms; these are the areas of the brain responsible for emotions, sexual instinct, aggression, motivation, memory and behaviour regulation. Modern brain imaging techniques are revealing that “the prefrontal cortex of a selected sample of impulsive murderers is less active than the prefrontal cortex of "normal" persons”. (Johnson, 1999) The prefrontal cortex is the part of the brain responsible for the regulation of behaviour, such as aggressiveness, which in turn is regulated by the amygdala. It follows, therefore, that an inactive frontal cortex which is unable to control an overly stimulated amygdala can result in extremely violent behaviour. (Johnson, 1999) There have also been findings of abnormally low volumes of gray matter consistent throughout certain areas of the brain in individuals diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder. (Johnson, 1999)

Other biological theories point to the physiological make up of psychopaths. Tests have indicated significant differences in the nervous system of psychopaths and those of other people (Ramsland, 1998). They appear to have a very sluggish autonomic nervous system resulting in a greater fear threshold, i.e. psychopaths may be immune to fear. In one study which showed them as being less likely to respond to fear-inducing stimuli (e.g. sudden loud noise): “The psychopath’s heart rate and skin temperature were low and their ‘startle reaction’ was substantially less than the average person [. . .] they need a higher level of thrill or stimulation in order to have an intense experience” (Ramsland,1998). These low levels of arousal can result in impulsivity and “thrill seeking” (Ramsland, 1998). Having lower levels of fear and anxiety also leave the psychopath to be less affected by punishment or other controls which would generally serve as a deterrent for most people.

The biological theories are numerous, and these are only a few, but just as with the environmental factors there is still to this date no evidence that demonstrates a definite causal relationship between biology and psychopathy, such that it can be said with absolute certainty that any individual having “x and y” conditions in their biological makeup is guaranteed to be a psychopath., and alternately that any individual not having “x and y” is not a psychopath. Ultimately, what seems most probable is that psychopathy develops as a result of intricate interactions between biological predispositions and environmental conditions. Robert Hare elaborates on the relationship stating that “genetic factors contribute to the biological bases of brain function and to basic personality structure, which in turn influence the way the individual responds to, and interacts with, life experiences and social environment” (Hare, 1993: 173). There may not be just one single cause for psychopathy, and research efforts are most certainly wasted when perspectives are too narrow and uncompromising.

Dangerous Offender Legislation in Canada

Given that psychopathy is not a mental illness, it does not serve as a mitigating factor in diminishing criminal responsibility. Psychopaths can fully appreciate the consequences of their actions and are capable of forming the necessary mens rea or criminal intent. After being tried and convicted of a "serious personal injury offence", an offender may also be tried for ‘dangerousness’, just prior to being sentenced. More likely than not, an offender found to be a psychopath in Canada, will also be determined a dangerous offender. To have an individual declared a dangerous offender, the crown must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the offender “constitutes a great threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons” (Semrau & Gale, 2002). This determination is based on three main factors:

a)      “Repetitive behaviour, of which the current is included, showing the offender’s failure to restrain his or her behaviour and demonstrating a likelihood, through future failure to restrain his or her bahaviour, of the offender causing death or injury to other persons, or inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons”. (Semrau & Gale, 2002: 261)

b)      For sexual offences “it must be demonstrated that the offender’s conduct in any sexual matter has shown a failure to control his sexual behaviour, of his causing injury, pain ‘or other evil’”. (Semrau & Gale, 2002: 262)

c)      “A history of persistent aggression, including the current offence, for which the offender had shown a substantial degree of indifference respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to other persons of his behaviour”. (Semrau & Gale, 2002: 262)

The proceedings take place in the presence of a judge, without a jury, and there are no specific provisions for the offender’s right to counsel. Expert assessment and observation of the offender is required and this may take place in a facility where the offender may be held (with his/her consent) for, but not exceeding, thirty days or 60 days if special circumstances so require (Petrunik, 1994). These experts will be called upon during the hearing, as well as any psychologists, criminologists or other relevant witnesses desired by the prosecution or the offender.  If found to be a ‘dangerous offender’; an indeterminate term of imprisonment will be imposed upon the individual “in lieu of any other sentence that might be imposed for the offence for which he has been convicted” (Petrunik, 1994). If the application for dangerous offender status fails, the crown may push to have the individual designated as a ‘long-term offender’, - a category created in 1997 when amendments were made to dangerous offender legislation. As a long-term offender, the individual may receive a definite sentence of two or more years incarceration, but once released may also be subject to mandatory supervision within the community for up to ten years. (Criminal Code Sec 759 3(a)(i)). Currently there are 331 designated dangerous offenders in Canada and since the addition of the long-term offender category, 260 have been ordered to receive mandatory supervision of up to ten years after their release (Canadian Press, 2004).

Conclusion – Where to go from here?

“Do I feel bad if I have to hurt someone? Yeah, sometimes, but mostly it’s like . . . uh . . . [laughs] . . . how did you feel the last time you squashed a bug?”  - A psychopath doing time for kidnapping, rape, and extortion (Hare, 1993:33).

The above are the chilling words of a psychopath; if ever there came anything close enough to being called a ‘monster’ it would be this. Cold, callous and heartless, the psychopath preys on the unsuspecting, destroying lives, breaking hearts and traumatizing the innocent. They account for only about one percent of the country’s population, yet they make up one quarter of its prison population, and are responsible for half of all the most serious crimes (Semrau & Gale, 2002). If the total prison population in Canada is 32,000 and 8,000 inmates are psychopaths, then of Canada’s 300,000 psychopaths, a full 292,000 are free and roaming amongst the general public. It must be taken into consideration that psychopaths do not only just rape, stab and kill others; they exist in all segments of society and their victims come in all forms. “They are the ones who remove life savings from the elderly; they are the family members who seduce, abuse then discard spouses or children; they are the friends who come to visit, run up hundreds of dollars in long-distance calls, disappear without mentioning it and certainly never pay; they are the hackers who send out computer viruses; they are the sons and daughters who steal their mother’s crutches. In their wake they leave anything from shock and hurt feelings to psychological or financial devastation. While many of them have learned to express regret, they don’t feel it.” (Semrau & Gale, 2002: 273).

What hope is there then, for the treatment of psychopaths and the protection of society? To date there exists very little cause for optimism. Psychopaths are known to have one of the highest rates of recidivism and still there exists no treatment method which has demonstrated significant success in treating them. Shock therapy does not work, drugs make no difference, and psychotherapy, as well as some of the more conventional therapies used for other offenders, has proven to be useless when applied to the psychopath (Ramsland, 1998). Most discouraging is the agreement among many experts that some forms of treatment do not just fail to improve their condition, but may actually be responsible for making the psychopath get worse. Said Robert Hare, some methods may only “provide psychopaths with new excuses and rationalizations for their behaviour and new insights into human vulnerability. They may learn new and better ways of manipulating other people, but they make little effort to change their own views and attitudes or to understand that other people have needs, feelings, and rights.” (Hare, 1996:197). Even if there did exist an effective treatment for psychopaths, it would take a criminal record to bring them into treatment; what measure is there that would identify and compel the other 292,000 free psychopaths, in Canada, to receive this treatment? – There is none.

Indeed, the situation does appear quite bleak, but perhaps it need not be. Research is yet to establish definitive insight into the causes of psychopathy, and until that time the best approach may not be to just give in to believing that “oh these psychopaths, they are not treatable, absolutely nothing can be done”, but rather to concede that there is a way, and that the correct solution might exist, it just has not been found yet. There remains a lot to be learned about psychopathy, and just as with all things; new advances in knowledge will lead to new breakthroughs. But for now, it appears that personal and public vigilance is the best protection. This paper has provided some basic understanding of the psychopathic personality; with this insight (and much more of what may be easily obtained from the internet, library or any bookstore) individuals might be better able to detect ‘warning signs’, protect their families, minimize their vulnerability and not become the next statistic for some heartless psychopath to brag about.

Copyright ©2004 Torwoli Dzuali.

 

 

 

Bibliography

Abbott, J. (1981). In the Belly of the Beast: Letters from Prison. New York: Random House.

Canadian Press (May 16, 2004). Number of dangerous offenders in Canada growing Retrieved November 25, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/

Caverly, J. (2000). Psychopathy vs. ASPD (Antisocial Personality Disorder). Retrieved November 14, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.slshealth.com/slswellness_forensics_aspd.cfm

Hare, R. (1996). Psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder: A Case of Diagnostic Confusion Psychiatric Times vol. 13, Issue 2. Retrieved November 14, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p960239.html