Psychopathy Without (the Language of) Disorder

Abstract

Psychopathy is often characterized in terms of what I call "the language of disorder." I question whether such language is necessary for an accurate and precise characterization of psychopathy, and I consider the practical implications of how we characterize psychopathy-whether as a biological, or merely normative, disorder.

Responsibility, Dysfunction and Capacity

“…That the "language of deficit" favours exculpatory judgments while the language of "mere difference" maybe even favours greater condemnation of psychopaths ( [30]: 1,12), is one kind of claim-I take it to be an empirical observation on how our responsibility assessments tend to be affected by the way that we characterize differences between psychopath and normal brains. However, instead of looking for further evidence either for or against this empirical claim, 2 in this paper I want to focus on a different issue which Reimer raises towards the end of her paper where she asks: "Should how we conceptualise psychopathy (as a biological or merely normative disorder) influence our attitudes toward practical issues, such as...…”

“…responsibility?" ( [30]:14, original emphasis). I will argue that our assessments of psychopaths' responsibility should not be affected by how these brain differences are characterized (or even by what is the correct way of characterizing these differences)-i.e.…”

“…4 Reimer cites three reasons which "mitigate against the idea that both [schizophrenia and psychopathy] are disorders": (i) "schizophrenia is associated with genuine neurological impairment", (ii) "schizophrenics often seek treatment for their condition", and (iii) schizophrenia is harmful and disadvantageous ( [30]:10), emphasis and internal quotation marks removed). These features are present in hypomania, which provides some reason to think of it as a disorder.…”

“…Sometimes Reimer talks about how these differences are conceptualised rather than how they are characterized, though given that the focus of her paper is meant to be on "the language used to characterize the empirical facts of psychopathy" ([30]:3), and nothing in her argument seems to hang on which of these terms is used, I will use the term "characterize" throughout this paper.…”

Restoring Responsibility: Promoting Justice, Therapy and Reform Through Direct Brain Interventions

“…The literature on psychopathy provides an excellent example (e.g. Kröber and Lau 2000;Maibom 2008;Reimer 2008). On one account psychopaths have significant deficits in affective mental capacities, and if such mental capacities are required for fully responsible moral agency then psychopaths may need to be at least partially excused for what they do, and (the retributive component of) their sentences may need to be mitigated.…”