Tell us the path to a solution that you are proposing. I’ve told you, in detail, the path to a solution provided by a return to the standard and established constructs and principles of professional psyhology (AB-PA; Bowlby, Minuchin, Beck).
Your turn. Tell us the path to a solution you envision.
Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857
The three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA provide the DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse, the 8-symptoms of Gardnerian PAS do not.
The three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA can be reliably identified in a six-session treatment focused assessment protocol costing about $2,500. The 8-symptoms of Gardnerian PAS are identified through a $20,000 to $40,000 child custody evaluation that takes six to nine months to complete and that is arbitrary and unreliable in identifying the pathology.
Seems like a pretty logical sequence to me. I’d recommend the six-session treatment focused assessment protocol that provides you with the DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse.
Karen Woodall can’t seem to process the logic of that.
Psychopathy is a disorder that occurs primarily in males. Offenders with psychopathic traits are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime in society, particularly violent crime. Early childhood is a time when individual differences in empathy and guilt—key indicators of the construct of psychopathy—are first evident. A growing number of longitudinal studies have begun to investigate how factors in infancy and early childhood predict psychopathic‐like traits in later childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. These studies have suggested that parenting styles during infancy (parental sensitivity, maternal harsh intrusion, commenting on the emotional state of the child) as well as attachment styles are predictive of later psychopathic‐like traits. In addition, child characteristics such as temperament and the functioning of biological systems such as the autonomic nervous system and hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis are predictive. Overall, studies have suggested that at least some of the origins of psychopathic traits are present in infancy and early childhood, which is consistent with the perspective of psychopathy as a neurodevelopmental disorder. A recent evolutionary‐developmental model provides hypotheses regarding how psychopathy may develop and why it is more common in males than females. This model, and its implications for intervention, is discussed in the context of the longitudinal studies that have been conducted on psychopathy.
Psychopathy is a personality disorder describing individuals who have high levels of a variety of traits, or characteristics. These include egocentricity, manipulativeness, pathological lying, a lack of guilt and empathy, callousness, sensation seeking, impulsivity, and irresponsibility. Individuals with high levels of these traits are thought to make up approximately 1% of the general population and account for 16% of the adult males who are in prison, jail, or on parole or probation (Kiehl & Hoffman, 2011). Individuals with psychopathic traits are 20 to 25 times more likely than nonpsychopaths to be in prison. It has been estimated that psychopathy accounts for $460 billion per year in criminal social costs (Kiehl & Hoffman, 2011). Individuals with psychopathic traits are much more likely to recidivate after being released and are much more likely to commit violent crimes after release (Hart, Kropp, & Hare, 1988). One study has found that offenders who score higher on psychopathy and exhibit better behavior in treatment are four times more likely to commit a new serious offense than are other offenders once released (Barbaree, 2005).
Personality disorders are primarily only considered in adulthood because they are expected to be stable, enduring traits. However, research has demonstrated that the traits of psychopathy can be measured in adolescence, and that these traits seem to be stable into adulthood. In particular, the socioemotional components of psychopathy such as “callous‐unemotional” (CU) traits, which are thought to be the core of psychopathy, are commonly measured in both children and adolescents. Continue reading “Early life predictors of callous‐unemotional and psychopathic traits”
Psychopathy is commonly viewed as a personality disorder defined by a cluster of
interpersonal, affective, lifestyle, and antisocial traits and behaviours, including
grandiosity, egocentricity, deceptiveness, shallow emotions, lack of empathy or remorse, irresponsibility, impulsivity, and a tendency to violate social norms. In our article, we outline standard methods for the assessment of psychopathy, its association with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), and its implications for clinical and forensic issues, including crime and violence, risk assessment, and treatment options.
Can J Psychiatry. 2009;54(12):791–802
APSD Antisocial Process Screening Device
ASPD antisocial personality disorder
CPS Childhood Psychopathy Scale
DSM Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
DVRAG Domestic Risk Appraisal Guide
F1 PCL-R Factor 1
F2 PCL-R Factor 2
HCR-20 Historical Clinical Risk Management
IRT item response theory
P1 PCL: SV Part 1
P2 PCL: SV Part 2
PCL-R Psychopathy Checklist—Revised
PCL:SV Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version
PCL:YV Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version
PD personality disorder
SEM Structural Equation Modelling
SORAG Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide
SSSP Society for the Scientific Study of Psychopathy
SVR-20 Sexual Violence Risk—20
VRAG Violent Risk Appraisal Guide Continue reading “Psychopathy Assessments”
Psychopathy is a clinical construct defined by a constellation of interpersonal, affective, lifestyle, and antisocial traits and behaviours. The most widely used instruments for its measurement are the Psychopathy Checklist—Revised and its derivatives.
Psychopathy is conceptually similar to ASPD; however, at the measurement level, the former places more emphasis on interpersonal and affective features and their links to broad antisocial tendencies, while the latter emphasizes overt antisocial behaviours.
The empirical association between psychopathy and ASPD is asymmetric; most people with psychopathy meet the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, diagnostic criteria for ASPD, but the converse is not true.
Psychopathy is associated with an increased risk for antisocial behaviour, crime, and violence, and presents the mental health and criminal justice systems with a formidable therapeutic challenge. Continue reading “Psychopathy: Assessment and Forensic Implications”
The concept of psychopathy has been difficult to operationalize and research in the
area of psychopathy measurement is compromised by the absence of an agreed
definition of the disorder (O’Kane, Fawcett, & Blackburn, 1996). The description of
psychopathy which has received the most widespread acceptance among researchers
and clinicians is the one proposed by Cleckley (1941). Cleckley suggested
psychopathy to be composed of 16 traits reflecting affective and interpersonal
deficits, including callousness, lack of guilt, and egocentricity (see da Silva, Rijo, &
Salekin, 2012 for a detailed description). This characterization of psychopathy has
served as the basis for creating the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL; Hare, 1980) and its
updated version, the Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003) –
often referred to as the “gold standard” for measuring psychopathy in clinical and
forensic settings. Continue reading “PSYCHOPATHY MEASUREMENT”
Psychopathy is a constellation of psychological symptoms that typically emerges early in childhood and affects all aspects of a sufferer’s life including relationships with family, friends, work, and school. The symptoms of psychopathy include shallow affect, lack of empathy, guilt and remorse, irresponsibility, and impulsivity (see Table 1 for a complete list of psychopathic symptoms). The best current estimate is that just less than 1% of all noninstitutionalized males age 18 and over are psychopaths.1 This translates to approximately 1,150,000 adult males who would meet the criteria for psychopathy in the United States today.2 And of the approximately 6,720,000 adult males that are in prison, jail, parole, or probation,3 16%, or 1,075,000, are psychopaths.4 Thus, approximately 93% of adult male psychopaths in the United States are in prison, jail, parole, or probation.
Psychopathy is astonishingly common as mental disorders go. It is twice as common as schizophrenia, anorexia, bipolar disorder, and paranoia,5 and roughly as common as bulimia, panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, and narcissism.6 Indeed, the only mental disorders significantly more common than psychopathy are those related to drug and alcohol abuse or dependence, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.
No matter where one stands on the long-debated question of whether “nothing works” when it comes to criminal rehabilitation,7 there is no doubt that the psychopath has grossly distorted the inquiry. Psychopaths are not only much more likely than non-psychopaths to be imprisoned for committing violent crimes,8 they are also more likely to finagle an early release using the deceptive skills that are part of their pathologic toolbox,9 and then, once released, are much more likely to recidivate, and to recidivate violently. Continue reading “THE CRIMINAL PSYCHOPATH”
Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by a lack of empathy for others. The LSRP was developed in 1995 for use in psychological research. It measures on two scales: primary psychopathy (psychopathic emotional affect) and secondary psychopathy (psychopathic lifestyle). Continue reading “Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale, a test of sociopathy.”
Criminal responsibility turns out to be quite distinct from moral responsibility. The two kinds of responsibility require very different conditions to be satisfied. In particular, criminal responsibility, unlike moral responsibility, does not require an agent be able to grasp and follow moral reasons; it requires only that the individual be able to grasp and follow criminal laws. Once this point is recognized, it becomes much easier to accept my thesis: while the subset of psychopaths who commit crimes are not morally responsible for their criminal behavior because they cannot understand moral reasons, they are still criminally responsible because they can understand what the consequences will be if they get caught. For this reason, even though I concede that psychopaths are not morally responsible for the crimes that they commit, our practice of punishing them for these crimes is still just.
Second, I argue that psychopathy is a mental illness and should be recognized as such. One reason that it should be recognized as a mental illness is simply because it is; it satisfies the main criteria for inclusion in the DSM-IV, the “bible” of mental disorders. The other reason is more practical than conceptual. It starts with two facts: (1) the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that the preventive detention of any individual who is not a criminal suspect is not constitutional unless the individual is not only dangerous but also mentally ill; and (2) psychopathy is not currently considered to be a mental illness. So, as things now stand, we cannot preventively commit dangerous psychopaths – that is, psychopaths who have clearly indicated that they will be committing serious crimes. Instead, we must wait for them to commit the crimes before we can lock them up. Unfortunately, this incarceration always comes too late for the victims. It would therefore be better if we could lock them up before they actually inflict any harm. Once again, then, I propose that the legal and psychological communities classify psychopathy as a mental illness.
psychopath, antisocial personality disorder, PCL-R, moral responsibility, criminal responsibility, control, insane, insanity defense, mental illness, punishment, preventive detention, commitment Continue reading “Dangerous Psychopaths: Criminally Responsible but Not Morally Responsible”