A few months ago I wrote a two–part post about how fMRI and PET scan technology were able to detect differences in the brains of psychopaths compared to non-psychopathic individuals. This area of research has identified that psychopathy has a genetic component, and has even been used in court cases to determine sentencing.

Recently, I came across a story on NPR about a neuroscientist who studies these scans, and decided to analyze his own brain scans and those of his family to determine if psychopathy was present. What he found was more than a little disturbing to him…

James Fallon reported that there was a documented history of criminal activity on his paternal side of the family, (including a relation to Lizzy Borden), that made him curious to view the brain scans of his family. They had all previously submitted brain scans and a blood sample in order to rule out a risk for Alzheimer’s, so he had the materials already.

“Fallon examined the images and compared them with the brains of psychopaths. His wife’s scan was normal. His mother: normal. His siblings: normal. His children: normal…however, his orbital cortex looks inactive. ‘If you look at the PET scan, I look just like one of those killers,’ said Fallon.”

Fallon decided to go one step further and analyze the blood samples in search of genes that are associated with violence; namely the MAO-A gene (monoamine oxidase A), specifically MAOA-L (low activity variant). This gene has been controversially dubbed the “warrior gene” due to its association with violent behavior (more on that discussion in another post). Much to his dismay, Fallon again found that everyone in his family has the low-aggression variant of the MAO-A gene, except for one person—himself.

“I’m 100 percent. I have the pattern, the risky pattern,” he says, then pauses. “In a sense, I’m a born killer.”

Fallon isn’t, of course, a killer; however, genetically speaking he meets the criteria of psychopathy.

Fallon reported that, “he had a had a terrific childhood; he was doted on by his parents and had loving relationships with his brothers and sisters and entire extended family.”

And therein lays the process of how one person can become a psychopath, and another to go on with a fairly “normal” life. Without the environmental component of an abusive or neglectful childhood, the genetic factors are not “activated.” This provides further insight into psychopathy—it is not only important to study those who are psychopaths, but also those who had major predispositions to become psychopaths, but did not. The protective factors can help us to better understand and encourage preventative measures.

Had Fallon had a different kind of childhood his life may have taken an all together different path…or not.

It’s difficult to know what particular factors protected Fallon from becoming a psychopath, but this certainly further supports the notion that our genetics do not predetermine our life’s course.

The age old debate of psychopathy versus sociopathy is not one that can be answered easily. This is mainly because the words are often used interchangeably, and even when the terms are clearly defined by one scholar, another may disagree and choose to use the term in an entirely different fashion. Looking up these terms in dictionaries can lead to more confusion as the definition for psychopathy may include the word sociopathy in its description and vice versa!

While I realize that contributing another discussion on this subject will not close the broader argument, I think it will help clarify how I use the terms here on the Forensic Focus blog, which will, at the very least, hopefully help readers understand what I am referring to. I try to use research as my guide in defining and applying these terms to my discussions, rather than the popular usage that is sometimes tossed about in the media.

Research suggests that, “psychopaths are a stable proportion of any population, can be from any segment of society, may constitute a distinct taxonomical class forged by frequency-dependent natural selection, and that the muting of the social emotions is the proximate mechanism that enables psychopaths to pursue their self-centered goals without felling the pangs of guilt. Sociopaths are more the products of adverse environmental experiences that affect autonomic nervous system and neurological development that may lead to physiological responses similar to those of psychopaths. Antisocial personality disorder is a legal/clinical label that may be applied to both psychopaths and sociopaths” (Walsh & Wu, 2008).

In other words, in the mental health field there is some consensus that psychopathy is more of an innate phenomenon whereas sociopathy, which has a similar clinical presentation to psychopathy, is more the result of environmental factors (poverty, exposure to violence, permissive or neglectful parenting, etc.). This is of course difficult to prove, as the nature versus nurture debate never seems to have a winner, and for good reason–it is very likely that both our biological components and environmental exposures influence and shape us fairly equally.

In 1941, Hervey Cleckley published The Mask of Sanity, which described diagnostic criteria for the “psychopathic personality.” Robert Hare, author of Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of Psychopaths Among Us, eventually elaborated on Cleckley’s work to create the PCL-R, the “gold-standard” assessment measure used to diagnose psychopathy.

The PCL-R identifies interpersonal deficits (such as grandiosity, arrogance and deceitfulness), affective deficits (lack of guilt and empathy), and impulsive and criminal behaviors (sexual promiscuity, stealing, etc.) that are typical deficits of the psychopath. In his book, Without Conscience, Hare stated that the difference between psychopathy and sociopathy “reflects on the origins and determinates of each.”

However, other differences between psychopathy and sociopathy, aside from origin, have been cited. The capacity to feel attachment and empathy towards another and to feel guilt and shame after doing something wrong is not associated with psychopathy; however it is suggested that sociopaths can emotionally attach to others, and feel badly when they hurt those individuals that they are attached to. The sociopath will still lack empathy and attachment toward the greater society and will not feel guilt in harming a stranger, or rebelling against laws, but does not lack empathy entirely, as is typical with the psychopath.

Therefore, both psychopaths and sociopaths are capable of committing heinous crimes; however, the psychopath would commit crimes against family members or “friends” (as well as strangers) and feel little to no remorse.

The last main difference between psychopathy and sociopathy is in the presentation. The psychopath is callous, yet charming. He or she will con and manipulate others with charisma and intimidation and can effectively mimic feelings to present as “normal” to society. The psychopath is organized in their criminal thinking and behavior, and can maintain good emotional and physical control, displaying little to no emotional or autonomic arousal, even under situations that most would find threatening or horrifying.  The psychopath is keenly aware that what he or she is doing is wrong, but does not care.

Conversely, the sociopath is less organized in his or her demeanor; he or she might be nervous, easily agitated, and quick to display anger. A sociopath is more likely to spontaneously act out in inappropriate ways without thinking through the consequences. Compared to the psychopath, the sociopath will not be able to move through society committing callous crimes as easily, as they can form attachments and often have “normal temperaments.” The sociopath will lie, manipulate and hurt others, just as the psychopath would, but will often avoid doing so to the select few people they care about, and will likely feel guilty should they end up hurting someone they care about.

So, while these two terms seem interchangeable on the surface because they share many of the same characteristics, they are more like two sides of the same coin. Looking at the differences may seem futile; however, looking at psychopathy and sociopathy as different constructs may prove to be helpful in understanding the etiology of these disorders, and in the development of effective treatment methods.

References

Hare, R.D. (1993). Without conscience: The disturbing world of psychopaths among us. New York: Pocket Books.

Stout, M. (2005). The sociopath next door: The ruthless versus the rest of us. New York: Broadway Books.

Walsh, A., & Wu, H.H. (2008). Differentiating antisocial personality disorder, psychopathy, and sociopathy: Evolutionary, genetic, neurological, and sociological considerations. Criminal Justice Studies, 2, 135-152.

Stephany Flores was killed in a Lima hotel on May 30th, 2010; five years to the day after Natalee Holloway disappeared. van der Sloot was arrested twice in the Holloway case but was freed for lack of evidence.

On June 7th, 2010, van der Sloot confessed to the murder of Stephany Flores, stating that he “drank an espresso and ate four biscuits in his hotel room while he contemplated how to get rid of the woman’s body.” Reportedly, he killed Flores in a rage after learning she had looked up information about his past, including his involvement with the Holloway case, on his laptop.

La Republica newspaper quoted van der Sloot as saying, “I did not want to do it. The girl intruded into my private life…she didn’t have any right. I went to her and I hit her. She was scared, we argued and she tried to escape. I grabbed her by the neck and hit her.”

As is often the case with highly publicized criminal cases, the debate about whether van der Sloot has a mental illness has already begun. Several articles report that Joran van der Sloot is a psychopath, sociopath, or that he has antisocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, or some combination of the above.

While van der Sloot certainly seems to display characteristics of some of these disorders, it is not possible for me, or anyone else, to diagnose van der Sloot via internet articles and television news stories. However, depending on the way his lawyer pleas the case, it seems likely that a psychiatrist or psychologist will get a chance to evaluate him eventually. Yet, if the reports of van der Sloot being a pathological liar (as he is self-described) turn out to be true, he is not likely to be any more honest with doctors as he has been thus far with the police, media, and his own friends and family.

The rage, impulsivity, and poor planning that van der Sloot exhibited and reported as the motive for his killing are not typical of the aloof, detached style of the psychopath. However, the violation of his privacy and personal information, which he may have deemed the ultimate disrespect, could have led to a narcissistic rage rather than a rage of passion (anger, jealousy, etc.) that is typically seen in murder cases. Alternatively, perhaps he lied about his motive. Perhaps he killed Flores in a premeditated plan, and later concocted the motive in an effort to reduce the murder charges to manslaughter, which would be more characteristic of a psychopath.

The speculations can go on and on, and if van der Sloot is deemed a psychopath, it is unlikely that he will reveal his true motivations unless it will protect him or service his own needs in some way. Hopefully his detainment in Peruvian prisons will keep him from killing again for a long while and perhaps bring justice to the families of his victims.

Interestingly, the article also discusses the dilemma of housing mentally ill persons in prison settings while occasionally treating psychopathic individuals in mental institutions. This is still a common occurrence today; as state psychiatric hospitals continue to close down, the mentally ill are redirected into the correctional system. As a result, there are more mentally ill people in the correctional system than in hospitals.

The article by Grahame addresses other concerns that are still relevant to the field of forensic psychology.

Grahame quotes a Dr. Lind as saying, “no one sent to prison for committing a crime should be sentenced for a term of definite length. I know a man who served fourteen years for second-degree murder when it would have been perfectly safe to release him within a few months; and I know a man who was sent to prison for a short term for a minor theft, who should have been kept under restraint for the rest of his life for the protection of society.”

This is a similar to the debate I posted about a few weeks ago regarding the indefinite imprisonment of sex offenders. There are criminals in all genres of crime that will perpetually re-offend, in the same way that there are criminals within the highest re-offending crimes that will only offend once.

The part of this article that I found most salient is when Grahame states:

“The scientific criminologist’s most puzzling problem is what should be done with and for the psychopath – the border-line criminal who is too sane to be kept in an asylum, but not sane enough to be left at large.”

Working with people who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity, I have been surprised by the significant presence of Axis II pathology (personality disorders). While most of these individuals also had a serious mental illness (Axis I) at the time of their crime to qualify for the plea, this illness is often controlled by the medication, therapy, and structure of the hospital routine. However, the personality disorders are not often managed by medicine and remain present throughout the course of the hospitalization.

The difficulty that the treating clinician runs into at the time of this person’s discharge is exactly the dilemma that Grahame discussed in 1935. What do we do about a person who is “sane” by legal standards (as in, their Axis I illness is under control) but is still a potential danger to society because of their Axis II pathology? Clearly, in the last 75 years we have yet to come up with a good answer to this question.

As I’ve discussed in previous articles, the issue of psychopathy is one of which we still have little understanding. While we can pinpoint the traits of psychopathy, the underlying causes, and more importantly, the treatment issues remain unclear. I can only hope that if someone unearths this post 75 years from now that it will be to compare how much more is known about psychopathy and mental illness in 2085 than was known in 2010 and 1935.

This case came to the Supreme Court after the lower courts conflicted on whether a confessional statement from a suspect, who remained mostly silent throughout a three plus hour police investigation, was valid in court.

Specifically, in this case, the suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, offered little verbal response throughout his interrogation, but three hours into his interrogation, he implicated himself in the crime by giving an affirmative answer to one of the officer’s questions. He later tried to revoke his confessional statement by stating that he was using his right to remain silent, hence why he was so quiet throughout the rest of the interrogation.

“Mr. Thompkins remained almost entirely silent in the face of three hours of interrogation, though he did say that his chair was hard and that he did not want a peppermint. After two hours and 45 minutes of questioning, Mr. Thompkins said yes in response to each of three questions: ‘Do you believe in God?’ ‘Do you pray to God?’ And, crucially, ‘Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?’ His affirmative response to the last question was used against him at trial, and he was convicted of first-degree murder.”

The 5-4 ruling found that remaining silent is not enough to invoke one’s right to remain silent, and that use of that right must be explicitly indicated by the suspect. Justices Sonia Sotomayer, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer dissented. Elena Kagan, who has been nominated by President Barack Obama to join the court, sided with the majority as U.S. solicitor general.

In her dissent, Sotomayer stated, “Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counterintuitively requires them to speak. At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so.” She further stated the majority’s decision ”turns Miranda upside down.”

So, with the second controversial Supreme Court decision within the last week, what are your thoughts on this? Is the “speak up to remain silent” ruling an accurate representation of the Miranda rights? Or, does explicitly requesting the right to remain silent refute the purpose of the right? I look forward to reading your comments on this subject.

Stephen Griffiths, a 40-year-old graduate student in criminology, was charged with the murder of three prostitutes from the West Yorkshire area of England. Griffiths is alleged to have killed Suzanne Blamires, Susan Rushworth, and Shelley Armitage within the city’s red light district in the past 11 months.

Griffiths was reportedly conducting research on serial killers, and told a neighbor he was “getting a PhD in murder and Jack the Ripper.”

Griffiths was caught after review of closed circuit security footage revealed him beating up a woman and then shooting her in the head with a crossbow. Later, the woman’s head and body parts were discovered in a local river.

“Griffiths holds a degree in psychology and had written extensively on the internet about some of history’s most notorious mass murderers. On a website, he called himself a ‘misanthrope who brought hate into heaven.'”

Griffiths appeared in court on Friday and identified himself as, “The Crossbow Cannibal.”

A forensic professor of mine once brought up the Friedrich Nietzsche quote, “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.” The professor explained that in the field of forensic psychology we would come across people and acts that were “pure evil” and that we must take care to prevent against resetting our worldview to accommodate horrific violence as the norm.

We don’t know much yet about Stephen Griffiths, I expect we’ll learn more as the case progresses, but I wonder, is this a case of someone who had sadistic traits and was inclined to study people like himself? Or, a case where the material being studied inspired his decision to become violent?

Based on what we know so far, I’m more inclined to believe the former is true in this case; however, it will be interesting to learn how the man who studied serial killers became one…

The case, decided with a 7-2 ruling, was raised after four men who were deemed sexually dangerous, were held after their prison sentences were over with no end date in sight. The men attempted to prove in the lower courts that indefinite imprisonment based on suspected “future crimes” was unconstitutional.

Twenty states already have laws that allow for indefinite imprisonment of sexually violent predators. This recent Supreme Court ruling supports those states’ decisions and allows other states to institute similar laws.

This topic is one of great debate, because while most people agree that the protection of the public against sex offenders is primary, the implication behind the government being allowed to impose indefinite imprisonment on someone brings up thoughts of Guantanamo Bay. Two Supreme Court justices, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented in the case, United States v. Comstock, No. 08-1224 for similar reasons.

“The fact that the federal government has the authority to imprison a person for the purpose of punishing him for a federal crime — sex-related or otherwise — does not provide the government with the additional power to exercise indefinite civil control over that person,” Justice Thomas wrote.

So, what do you think? Is this ruling in the best interest of the public? Is it setting a precedent for the government to indefinitely imprison people for crimes other than sexual offenses? I would love to hear your comments on this controversial ruling!

Greg Vecchi, Ph.D., chief of the FBI’s BSU states, “We’re looking at serial killers and serial killer artifacts. This is not to glamorize these killers, but to understand them. Our research is all about what we like to say, crawling into the minds of the bad guys.” See a short video about the museum here.

In other words, the vision of the museum is to assist in preventing future victimization through understanding the meaning behind offender behavior. It is not meant as a public spectacle to disrespect the victims, and their families, of these killers.

The museum started after a private collector, (a “serial killer groupie“), contacted Dr. Vecchi stating that he had been studying serial killers for over 25 years, and wanted to donate a valuable collection of artwork, etc. to the BSU for further analysis.

The museum currently has paintings by John Wayne Gacy, sketches by Richard Ramirez (the Night Stalker), greeting cards from Lawrence “Pliers” Bittaker, and artwork by Keith Jesperson. In addition, the museum contains artwork, poetry, and personal correspondence from dozens of other serial killers including greeting cards and letters to family members.

Scholars, art experts, handwriting experts, etc. will be allowed access to the artifacts in order to analyze brush strokes, handwriting and more to gain insight into how serial killers think. That information will be added to what the FBI already knows about the offender from previous interviews, arrest files and court documents to create a clearer picture of the mind of a serial killer.

Their private artwork and correspondence is expected to reveal a side of their thoughts that police were not necessarily privy to during their investigations:

“The materials provide unique insights into the killers’ motivations, personalities, and the meaning behind their behavior simply because when corresponding with friends, family, and themselves, there was no apparent reason to put forth a certain socially desirable image; whereas, in their interactions with the police and other authorities, the killers were more likely to feel compelled to present a certain image and demeanor.” (Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association)

A fascinating, yet creepy, undertaking, I hope this research provides information that will be used to protect the public and create a more accurate understanding of what makes these people tick…

“The study used two groups of participants (the first aged 18 to 30 and the second 50 plus) who were shown videos of courtroom scenes depicting female defendants, either displaying overt behavioral symptoms of borderline personality disorder or not displaying any symptoms to examine whether the two age groups had different attitudes towards the defendants.”

The authors found that the participants from the older group felt that the defendant was “more guilty” than those in the younger group. In addition, they tended to recommend longer, harsher sentences than the younger participants. The authors suspected that education about mental illness among the younger generation contributed to their leniency in determining the offender’s guilt and sentencing.

While it is possible that mental health awareness contributed to the results of this study, it’s difficult to know if this information can be generalized to other disorders, or even beyond the area of England where this study took place. There could be many reasons why the older population was stricter with their views of the defendant, including the fact that the older group may have had more conservative beliefs than the younger group.

However, it is promising to think that educating the public about mental illness would offer more compassionate treatment to those individuals with mental illness who end up in the criminal justice system. More research needs to be done in this area to assist legal teams in selecting juries and to promote education of mental health issues as it relates to the legal process.

Dr. Thomas Lane, a veterinarian in Florida, started the first guide dog/prison program in 1990. Since then, several other programs have developed in which guide dogs, explosive detection dogs, and therapy dogs are trained at various prisons across the country.

A recent article in the New York Times discussed how dogs that are trained within prison guide dog programs are being used for the treatment of PTSD in returning war veterans. These dogs, known as psychiatric service dogs, have helped dozens of veterans significantly reduce their PTSD symptoms.

Dog Tags: Service Dogs for Those Who’ve Served Us was established by Puppies Behind Bars to provide service dogs to veterans returning home from Iraq (OIF) and Afghanistan (OEF) who have suffered a physical injury, traumatic brain injury (TBI) or exhibit Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Amazingly, “The dogs are trained to jolt a soldier from a flashback, dial 911 on a phone and even sense a panic attack before it starts. And, perhaps most important, the veterans’ sense of responsibility, optimism and self-awareness is renewed by caring for the dogs.”

These guide dogs not only assist the disabled, or troubled, person who receives the dog, but also the person who trains the dog. While each prison determines the guidelines for inmate inclusion into the program, each has high standards to enter and remain active as a puppy trainer. Although the work is intense: puppy training classes, homework, and tests, the rewards of raising and training a dog are worth it for most of the inmates.

Some inmates credit the program with turning their lives around. The unconditional love and acceptance given to them by their dog is something that many of the inmates have never experienced in their lives; in turn, they learn how to put the needs of another being ahead of their own. Most inmates acknowledge that the hardest part of the program is saying goodbye to their dog. The dog typically stays with the inmate for two years before it goes on for final training and on to a life of service, but the impact the dog has on the inmate is life long.

Having personally visited, and worked at, correctional facilities with the Puppies Behind Bars program I can say that at first, seeing dogs at a prison is a bit strange.  However, even in observing the program briefly one can see the benefits. Not only do the dogs benefit from the constant one-on-one support, but seeing the inmates with a feeling of purpose and pride in their work makes it feel as though real rehabilitation and treatment is occurring, something that benefits everyone involved, and society at large.

Click here to donate to the Puppies Behind Bars Program