Psychopathy Treatment and the Stigma of Yesterday's Research

Restorative Justice and Psychopathic Traits: The Perspective of Belgian Practitioners

“…Research has shown that effectively treating psychopaths can be quite difficult (Klein Haneveld et al, 2020;Ogloff et al, 1990;Olver & Wong, 2011;Rojas & Olver, 2021), but no true evidence exist for the notion that psychopathy is an untreatable syndrome (DeSorcy et al, 2020;Larsen, 2019;Larsen et al, 2020). In fact, there are some indications that psychopathic offenders can be successfully treated (O'Brien & Daffern, 2016;Polaschek & Daly, 2013).…”

Are psychopathy assessments ethical? A view from forensic mental health.

“…Treatment and rehabilitation amenability There is evidence that psychopaths have been excluded from treatment and rehabilitation programs (designed to minimize future antisocial and criminal behavior) due to the wrong assumption that psychopaths are unlikely to benefit from clinical efforts. Edens et al, 2018;Haneveld et al, 2020;Harris & Rice, 2006;Larsen, 2019;Larsen et al, 2020;Olver, 2018;Polaschek & Skeem, 2018;Salekin et al, 2010;Skeem et al, 2009. Dangerous and long-term offender status Dangerous and long-term offender status is usually given to offenders who pose extraordinary risks to society. The designation usually implies indeterminate or longer sentencing, limitation of rights to parole, and/or extended period of supervision after serving a sentence.…”

“…Olver et al, 2020). Others have expressed concerns that practitioners may be excluding psychopaths from treatment based on the erroneous assumption that psychopathy is chronic and untreatable (e.g., DeMatteo & Olver, 2022; Edens et al, 2018; Larsen, 2019; Polaschek & Skeem, 2018). There is also mounting evidence of adversarial allegiance in courts, whereby PCL-R scores differ significantly depending on whether the assessor is retained by the defense or prosecution (e.g., Boccaccini et al, 2017; DeMatteo et al, 2014; Edens et al, 2015; Hare, 2016; Murrie et al, 2009).…”

“…As these findings question many widely held beliefs about psychopathy, some researchers are beginning to raise ethical concerns about the current role of psychopathy assessments in forensic practices (e.g., DeMatteo et al, 2020a;Edens et al, 2018;Larsen, 2019;Polaschek & Skeem, 2018). For instance, DeMatteo et al (2020a) recently published a Statement of Concerned Experts voicing strong reservations about using the PCL-R to inform capital sentencing decisions (see also, DeMatteo et al, 2020b;cf.…”

“…This would imply a near-universal cessation of psychopathy (i.e., with the exception being the use of psychopathy assessment in research contexts). Further, we advise that practitioners be mindful about the increased attention that psychopathy assessments have drawn from critical voices in the recent decade (e.g., DeMatteo et al, 2020a;Edens et al, 2018;Jalava et al, 2015;Larsen, 2019;Skeem & Cooke, 2010), criticisms that are closely related to the finding that the clinical reliability and forensic utility of psychopathy assessments might be substantially overestimated (e.g., Larsen et al, 2020;Polaschek & Skeem, 2018;Serin et al, 2016;Yang et al, 2010). In light of this increased attention, we suspect that the risk of professional ethical sanction is growing for those practitioners who operate within institutions where psychopathy assessments are routinely utilized.…”