The Confusion over Psychopathy (II): Implications for Forensic (Correctional) Practice

Abstract

This article is the second in a two-part series on psychopathy. The first article systematically, although provisionally, reviewed the major transitions associated with psychopathy's historical development, focusing on how changes in nomenclature, meaning, degree of social condemnation, and prognosis significantly affect the current understanding of this mental disorder. This article assesses the most pressing forensic practice issues stemming from the convoluted history of psychopathy. In particular, this article comments on assessment concerns related to the convergence and divergence of the antisocial personality disorder-psychopathy continuum, on diagnostic and treatment concerns related to countertransference and misdiagnosis, and on courtroom testimony concerns related to competent forensic evaluations particularly when clinical assessments of sexually violent predators are administered. On this latter point, this article explores the limits of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, especially in regard to predicting accurately violent sexual recidivism. Ultimately, this article clarifies much of the confusion surrounding psychopathy and forensic (correctional) practice.This article is the second in a two-part series on psychopathy. The first article provided an analytical review of the major transitions associated with psychopathy's historical development, documenting where and how interpretations of this mental disorder have produced confusion and misunderstanding in nomenclature, meaning, degree of condemnation, and prognosis (Arrigo & Shipley, 2001). Missing from this investigation, however, was any sustained examination of the current forensic practice problems arising from psychopathy's changing and complicated evolution.This article examines the most serious and pressing contemporary issues stemming from the convoluted history of psychopathy. In particular, several notable implications for forensic and correctional practice are presented. In the first section, we examine the antisocial personality disorder (ASPD)-psychopathy continuum, describing where the two constructs overlap and where they diverge. In addition, empirical data are offered, demonstrating the relationship between ASPD, psychopathy, and violence. The actual base rates of ASPD and psychopathy in prison settings are also provided. In the second section, we address the confusion and countertransference (i.e., social control) that occurs when diagnosing someone as psychopathic. We note several important differences when identify-

Understanding the violent personality: antisocial personality disorder, psychopathy, & sociopathy explored

“…Because many youth offenders may not be diagnosed with Conduct Disorder, the percentage of Antisocial Personality Disorder may be higher than reported because adult offenders lacked the Conduct Disorder diagnosis or records that they may have in fact met the diagnostic criteria for Conduct Disorder. 14…”

An examination of gender differences in antisocial personality

“…PCL-R psychopathy is also more similar to Cleckley's (1976) description in terms of its emphasis on severity. Thus, while psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder are theoretically related to the same underlying construct, it is necessary to recognize that each represents a different collection of personality traits and behaviours (Shipley & Arrigo, 2001). Nonetheless, given their common roots, it remains of value to review literature that has explored gender differences in psychopathy as well as APD in an examination of gender bias in antisocial traits.…”

Adult Sex Offenders on Community Supervision

“…Both scales have good validity and reliability (see Shipley & Arrigo, 2001). The cutoff score for a diagnosis of psychopathic deviancy is typically 30 using the PCL-R, although Hare recommends 35 for offender populations (Hare, 1996).…”