Understanding Psychopathy: Traits, Theories, and Assessments
Psychopathy
Concept
Psychopathy is a concept reserved for individuals who are not socialized and exhibit behaviors that lead to ongoing conflicts with society. These individuals are incapable of loyalty, are extremely selfish and irresponsible, and have a low frustration tolerance.
Two facts are most characteristic of the psychopathic personality: the inability to experience emotional responses and an irresistible tendency to act impulsively. From these two facts, other traits are derived, such as antisocial behavior, aggression, and lack of motivation.
Psychopathy is considered an untreated mental illness because individuals with this disorder have lost touch with reality while maintaining their mental faculties. Depending on the country, individuals with psychopathy may or may not be held criminally responsible for their actions.
PCL-R Assessment
Robert Hare created the PCL-R, the most widely used method for assessing psychopathy. It is a 20-item scale consisting of two factors:
- Factor 1: Personality (e.g., glibness/superficial charm, grandiose sense of self-worth, pathological lying, manipulativeness, lack of remorse or guilt, shallow affect, callousness/lack of empathy, failure to accept responsibility for actions)
- Factor 2: Social Deviance (e.g., need for stimulation, parasitic lifestyle, poor behavioral controls, early behavioral problems, lack of realistic long-term goals, impulsivity, irresponsibility, juvenile delinquency, revocation of conditional release, criminal versatility, promiscuous sexual behavior, many short-term marital relationships)
Each item is assigned a score, and the total score determines the degree of psychopathy:
- 30 or higher: Psychopathy
- 20-29: Moderately psychopathic
- Below 20: No psychopathy
Chicago School
The Chicago School refers to a group of sociologists at the University of Chicago who significantly influenced modern criminal sociology. Their most relevant thesis posits that the physical and social characteristics of certain urban areas in modern industrial cities generate crime and explain its geographical distribution.
Purpose
The Chicago School was concerned with the growth of cities, the expansion of industry and railroads, and their impact on crime.
Method
The school employed empirical field research, statistics, and advanced technological tools for their time.
Conclusions
- Individuals who were not criminals in their country of origin became offenders upon arriving in America, suggesting that the change in environment caused a decrease in inhibition and provided opportunities for criminal behavior.
- Immigrant groups often stayed together and apart from the new country’s culture, leading to increased crime rates in these border areas.
- Offenses were often committed near the offender’s place of residence.
Drift Theory
David Matza agreed with the idea of learned criminal behavior but diverged by suggesting that most delinquents still generally accept societal values. They drift in and out of delinquency, occasionally committing offenses while remaining conventional citizens.
Neutralization Techniques
Matza argued that individuals must learn to neutralize the force of the regulatory system through accommodation mechanisms. These neutralization techniques include:
- Denial of responsibility: Shifting blame away from the individual.
- Denial of injury: Downplaying the harm caused by the offense.
- Denial of the victim: Justifying the offense by claiming the victim deserved it.
- Condemnation of the condemners: Shifting blame to those who disapprove of the behavior.
- Appeal to higher loyalties: Justifying the offense as serving a greater good.
Three Stages of Drift
- Affinity: Influenced by the Chicago School’s ideas, this stage involves the individual’s beliefs and values aligning with delinquent subcultures.
- Affiliation: The individual joins a group and learns how to commit crimes.
- Signification: After committing an offense, the individual’s perception changes, and they accept a new reality related to their delinquency. This stage connects with labeling theory.
Sociological Theories of Women Offenders
Otto Pollak’s Theory of Chivalry (1950)
Pollak argued that official crime statistics underestimate female crime due to societal roles that allow women to conceal their offenses. Women’s traditional roles in the home provide opportunities for crimes like poisoning and child abuse, while men’s chivalrous attitudes lead to underreporting and lenient treatment by law enforcement and the justice system.
Rita James Simon’s Role Theory (1975) and Freda Adler’s Liberation Thesis (1975)
These theories emerged during the women’s liberation movement and suggested that as women gained more social and economic equality with men, their crime rates would converge. Simon focused on women’s increasing opportunities to commit white-collar crimes, while Adler argued that women’s liberation from traditional roles would lead to increases in both property and violent crimes.
Francis Heidensohn’s Control Theory (1985)
Heidensohn argued that women’s lower crime rates are due to the greater social control they experience compared to men. This control manifests in various spheres of women’s lives, including the family, the workplace, and public spaces, limiting their opportunities and motivations for crime.
Sally Simpson’s Gendered Pathways to Offending (1987)
Simpson emphasized the importance of considering the different life experiences and pathways that lead men and women to crime. She argued that women’s pathways to offending are often shaped by factors such as poverty, victimization, and relationship issues.
These sociological theories offer valuable insights into the complex interplay of gender, social factors, and criminal behavior.