Psychopath Analysis

Psychopaths pose a challenge for theorists as to their debatable degree of moral and legal responsibility for their actions, as the capacities needed to assign such attributions to an individual may not be present. As psychopaths are able to see the world as it is with no delusions of a false reality they are able to practically apply reason in an effort to pursue their own goals. However, they seem unable to maintain control of their behaviours when placed in a moral situation when their goals are in congruence with the morally negligent path. This is due to their lack of empathy and an inability to see reason for treating others in a morally acceptable manner. This creates a division in opinions with one explanation suggesting the ability

Whether particular chemical imbalances in the brain are to blame, suffering abuse during childhood, or perhaps a combination of both (Brogaard 2012). There is no set division between ‘psychopath’ and ‘non-psychopath’; instead levels of psychopathy are placed on a spectrum (Brogaard 2012). The “psychopath test’ created by Robert D. Hare (1991), is a way to measure where an individual sits on this continuum. It tests for the presence of psychopathic traits such as inflated self-views, superficial charm, lack of remorse, shallow affect, limited impulse control, lack of empathy and so on. It also assesses criminality, cancellation of conditional release and failure to accept responsibility for wrongdoings. Kossen (2013) suggests that the factor making ‘psychopaths’ unique from ‘non-psychopaths’ and even those with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is their lack of certain emotions such as empathy and guilt. This distinguishes them from those with ASPD, as ASPD individuals often are able to make basic moral judgments. Furthermore, these traits are primary motive for committing serious crimes such as rape, murder and armed robbery. This condition however has no effect on the reasoning faculty, or moral reasoning levels, in the psychopath meaning that they are efficient at planning out courses of action to achieve their own goals (Kossen,

They agreed that emotional deficits make psychopaths unable to make moral judgments; however, they did not agree that psychopaths lack the understanding of moral right and wrong. Therefore, their study tested an alternate hypothesis: that psychopaths are able to understand right from wrong but are unable to control moral behaviours. Psychopathic subjects were matched with healthy individuals and non-psychopathic criminals. Subjects were asked to judge whether cases of personal harms were less acceptable than impersonal harms in instances where both had utilitarian gain. All groups of participants answered similarly stating that it was less morally acceptable to inflict personal harms. Cima-Knijff concluded from this research that there was a possibility psychopaths had a clear understanding of moral right and wrong but that they did not care about this knowledge or any consequences as a result of their behaviour. A limitation of this study however was that there was no need to answer quickly therefore it was possible that the psychopaths were lying. If they were required to answer impulsively there was a potential for different results. A potential real-life example of this can be seen when considering the case of William Heirens, the lipstick killer. After committing one of many murders police found scrawled on the wall, ‘for