Mental impairment, moral understanding and criminal responsibility: Psychopathy and the purposes of punishment

Cordelia Fine, Jeanette Kennett

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

We have argued here that to attribute criminal responsibility to psychopathic individuals is to ignore substantial and growing evidence that psychopathic individuals are significantly impaired in moral understanding. They do not appear to know why moral transgressions are wrong in the full sense required by the law. As morally blameless offenders, punishment as a basis for detention cannot be justified. Moreover, as there are currently no successful treatment programs for psychopathy, nor can detention be justified on grounds of treatment. Instead, we argue detention on the grounds of self-defence, due to the severe and continuing threat posed by the psychopathic criminal. Acknowledging that the psychopathic offender is not criminally responsible would clearly have significant implications for their treatment in the judicial system. Moreover, explicit acknowledgment that psychopathic offenders are selectively but significantly mentally impaired might act as a motivation for the development of much-needed, targeted, treatment and management programs. We do not deny that psychopathic offenders are dangerous and 'calculating predators' (Hare, 1998a, p. 205). However, to ignore the substantial evidence that psychopathic offenders are not criminally responsible is itself a dangerous threat to criminal justice.

LanguageEnglish
Pages425-443
Number of pages19
JournalInternational Journal of Law and Psychiatry
Volume27
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Punishment
offender
penalty
responsibility
threat
self-defense
Hares
Criminal Law
evidence
Therapeutics
justice
Motivation
Law
management

Cite this

@article{ebfac3d15412466682a0550f0a43dd24,
title = "Mental impairment, moral understanding and criminal responsibility: Psychopathy and the purposes of punishment",
abstract = "We have argued here that to attribute criminal responsibility to psychopathic individuals is to ignore substantial and growing evidence that psychopathic individuals are significantly impaired in moral understanding. They do not appear to know why moral transgressions are wrong in the full sense required by the law. As morally blameless offenders, punishment as a basis for detention cannot be justified. Moreover, as there are currently no successful treatment programs for psychopathy, nor can detention be justified on grounds of treatment. Instead, we argue detention on the grounds of self-defence, due to the severe and continuing threat posed by the psychopathic criminal. Acknowledging that the psychopathic offender is not criminally responsible would clearly have significant implications for their treatment in the judicial system. Moreover, explicit acknowledgment that psychopathic offenders are selectively but significantly mentally impaired might act as a motivation for the development of much-needed, targeted, treatment and management programs. We do not deny that psychopathic offenders are dangerous and 'calculating predators' (Hare, 1998a, p. 205). However, to ignore the substantial evidence that psychopathic offenders are not criminally responsible is itself a dangerous threat to criminal justice.",
author = "Cordelia Fine and Jeanette Kennett",
year = "2004",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1016/j.ijlp.2004.06.005",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "425--443",
journal = "International Journal of Law and Psychiatry",
issn = "0160-2527",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "5",

}

Mental impairment, moral understanding and criminal responsibility : Psychopathy and the purposes of punishment. / Fine, Cordelia; Kennett, Jeanette.

In: International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Vol. 27, No. 5, 09.2004, p. 425-443.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mental impairment, moral understanding and criminal responsibility

T2 - International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

AU - Fine, Cordelia

AU - Kennett, Jeanette

PY - 2004/9

Y1 - 2004/9

N2 - We have argued here that to attribute criminal responsibility to psychopathic individuals is to ignore substantial and growing evidence that psychopathic individuals are significantly impaired in moral understanding. They do not appear to know why moral transgressions are wrong in the full sense required by the law. As morally blameless offenders, punishment as a basis for detention cannot be justified. Moreover, as there are currently no successful treatment programs for psychopathy, nor can detention be justified on grounds of treatment. Instead, we argue detention on the grounds of self-defence, due to the severe and continuing threat posed by the psychopathic criminal. Acknowledging that the psychopathic offender is not criminally responsible would clearly have significant implications for their treatment in the judicial system. Moreover, explicit acknowledgment that psychopathic offenders are selectively but significantly mentally impaired might act as a motivation for the development of much-needed, targeted, treatment and management programs. We do not deny that psychopathic offenders are dangerous and 'calculating predators' (Hare, 1998a, p. 205). However, to ignore the substantial evidence that psychopathic offenders are not criminally responsible is itself a dangerous threat to criminal justice.

AB - We have argued here that to attribute criminal responsibility to psychopathic individuals is to ignore substantial and growing evidence that psychopathic individuals are significantly impaired in moral understanding. They do not appear to know why moral transgressions are wrong in the full sense required by the law. As morally blameless offenders, punishment as a basis for detention cannot be justified. Moreover, as there are currently no successful treatment programs for psychopathy, nor can detention be justified on grounds of treatment. Instead, we argue detention on the grounds of self-defence, due to the severe and continuing threat posed by the psychopathic criminal. Acknowledging that the psychopathic offender is not criminally responsible would clearly have significant implications for their treatment in the judicial system. Moreover, explicit acknowledgment that psychopathic offenders are selectively but significantly mentally impaired might act as a motivation for the development of much-needed, targeted, treatment and management programs. We do not deny that psychopathic offenders are dangerous and 'calculating predators' (Hare, 1998a, p. 205). However, to ignore the substantial evidence that psychopathic offenders are not criminally responsible is itself a dangerous threat to criminal justice.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=4444315069&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijlp.2004.06.005

DO - 10.1016/j.ijlp.2004.06.005

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 425

EP - 443

JO - International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

JF - International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

SN - 0160-2527

IS - 5

ER -