1438HomicideSouth_agencyE+Getty Images PlusLearn

143
8Homicide
South_agency/E+/Getty Images Plus
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to
• Explain the availability heuristic and its impact on
understanding homicide.
• Differentiate between the categories of homicide.
• Differentiate between serial, mass, and spree murderers.
• Describe the types of family violence that could end in
homicide.
• Analyze the demographics of homicide.
• Analyze the extent to which homicide offenders may
recidivate.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or
redistribution.
144

Section 8.1 Introduction
Introductory Case Study: Jessica Colpitts
In Orofina, Idaho, in May 2017, Samantha Fignani suffered a
fatal gunshot wound in her home.
She was just 23 years old. Her family, including her two young
daughters, were devastated and
hoped for swift justice. The police took only 2 days to locate
Fignani’s killer, a woman named Jes-
sica Colpitts. According to police, Colpitts became enraged
when her boyfriend, Joseph Walker,
admitted that he had been romantically involved with Fignani
behind Colpitts’s back.
The police had an eyewitness to the shooting, along with jail
telephone call recordings of conver-
sations between Walker and Colpitts about Walker’s affair with
Fignani. Not too long after the
jail telephone call, Colpitts enlisted the assistance of her friend,
Cassie Madsen, to confront Fig-
nani about the affair. Colpitts’s car was spotted on video
driving toward Fignani’s home. Madsen
denied knowing that Colpitts would actually kill Fignani during
the confrontation. Colpitts had
never been violent before and had never expressed a desire to
harm anyone.
However, Colpitts fatally shot Fignani with a shotgun and then
laughed as she and Madsen fled
the scene. At trial, Madsen testified that she was stunned that
anyone could be so cold as to
laugh about having just shot someone to death in front of the
victim’s children. Colpitts’s defense
attorneys tried to convince the jury that Madsen was the killer
because there had been a fallout
between Madsen and Fignani over drugs. (Fignani was dealing

methamphetamine and would
no longer sell to Madsen.) However, the jury rejected that
argument and voted unanimously to
convict Jessica Colpitts of first-degree murder for killing
Samantha Fignani.
As you read this chapter, consider the following questions
regarding this case:
1. Why is homicide considered one of the most fascinating—and
arguably the most chal-
lenging—issues in the psychological study of crime?
2. Do you think that Colpitts’s socioeconomic status and other
situational factors led to
her committing murder?
3. A love triangle ending in murder might sound familiar. Do
you think that homicides are
prevalent in today’s culture?
8.1 Introduction
Homicide may seem as though it is highly prevalent in our
culture. True crime episodes of
Dateline and 48 Hours, other documentaries focused on
homicide cases, and a number of fic-
tional television shows and movies that glamorize murder and
murderers seem to support
the belief that homicide is a frequently occurring crime.
However, the data does not support
that notion. It’s important to understand the psychological
foundation of our perceptions of
homicide frequency and the individuals who commit such
violent acts, as well as the types of
homicides and associated variables.

redistribution.
145
Section 8.2 Availability Heuristic
Though it may seem that individuals who commit homicide must
be mentally ill, you may
recall from Chapter 2 that most individuals who suffer from
serious mental illness are signifi-
cantly more likely to be victimized than they are to perpetrate a
crime. Perpetrators of homi-
cide, for the most part, tend to appear outwardly normal. Recall
Jessica Colpitts’s case from
the beginning of the chapter. It seems that she was fueled by
jealousy and perhaps an inability
to control her impulses, despite a lack of any prior evidence that
she was capable of such vio-
lence. In some other cases, murderers epitomize psychopaths in
that they are cool, calm, and
calculated. Perhaps you are wondering how it is possible that
seemingly normal individuals
are capable of perpetrating such brutal acts of violence,
including taking another’s life. This is
a question for which there may be no precise or satisfactory
response; however, this chapter
will examine some common features of individuals who kill.
The reality is that most homicide victims are killed by people
who are known to them, and
in many cases the murderous violence was shockingly
unpredictable. It may be rather unset-
tling to grasp that we cannot always predict with precision who

will become homicidal or
when homicidal behavior will occur, but we will examine the
tendencies and variables that
may lead up to these criminal acts.
8.2 Availability Heuristic
Given that there is so much news coverage of murder and
homicide, it may lead us to assume
that murders are frequently occurring events. The truth is that
homicides are rare. In 2017,
there were approximately 17,200 homicides in the United
States. This may sound like a lot
of victims—and it is—but when considering this number out of
the 1.2 million total violent
crimes reported by law enforcement agencies to the FBI’s
Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)
program, it is a small proportion of the violent crime category.
Specifically, only 1.4% of all
violent crimes in 2017 were homicides (FBI, 2018). This rate
represents a slight decrease of
approximately 0.7% from 2016 but also shows a significant
increase of approximately 17%
from 2013, when there were an estimated 14,200 homicides in
the United States. This means
that homicides have increased over time.
Interestingly, where you live may determine whether you
perceive that homicide is a fre-
quently occurring crime. This is based on a social psychology
concept called the availability
heuristic. The availability heuristic refers to the likelihood that
individuals overestimate the
prevalence of certain events based on how easily these events
come to mind. For example,
the UCR shows that nearly half of all murders in the United
States in 2017 were committed

in the South (see Table 8.1). Therefore, in southern states, the
news media frequently reports
stories of homicides, given that the majority of murders occur in
that part of the country. The
availability heuristic predicts that individuals who live in the
South will be more prone to
overestimate the prevalence of homicides than individuals in the
Northeast, where the homi-
cide rate is much lower.
redistribution.
146
Section 8.3 Categories, Definitions, and Statistics of Homicide
Table 8.1: Offense and population percentage distribution by
U.S. region, 2017
Region U.S. total* Northeast Midwest South West
Population 100.0 17.3 20.9 38.0 23.8
Violent crime 100.0 13.4 20.2 40.8 25.5
Murder and nonnegligent
manslaughter
100.0 11.3 22.6 45.9 20.2
Rape 100.0 12.4 24.6 37.0 26.0
Robbery 100.0 15.3 19.1 38.0 27.7

Aggravated assault 100.0 12.9 19.9 42.5 24.7
Property crime 100.0 11.4 19.6 41.9 27.0
Burglary 100.0 9.1 19.6 44.9 26.3
Larceny-theft 100.0 12.6 19.8 42.1 25.5
Motor vehicle theft 100.0 7.3 17.8 35.5 39.4
*Because of rounding, the percentages may not add up to 100.0.
Note. Sufficient data are not available to estimate totals for
arson. Therefore, no arson data are published in this table.
Source: “Table 3: Crime in the United States,” by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, 2018 (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-
u.s
/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-3/table-
3.xls#overview).
8.3 Categories, Definitions, and Statistics of Homicide
The concept of murder is commonly understood, but Black’s
Law Dictionary (Garner, 2014)
has a substantive and technical definition of murder that
includes a clear psychological
component—the ability to form intent to commit murder. In
criminal law, intent refers to
the subjective state of mind in which the perpetrator makes “a
decision to bring about a
prohibited consequence” (R. v. Mohan, 1994). Specifically, the
definition includes language
referring to the perpetrator’s mental state, such as “of sound
mind and discretion,” and
“deliberate action” (Garner, 2014, p. 1170) to describe the

perpetrator’s goal of causing life-
ending harm to the victim. The existence of these psychological
and behavioral elements
are components of determining whether the murder constitutes
criminal homicide, mur-
der that contains the element of intent to cause the death of
another and is considered
neither excusable nor justifiable, such as in Jessica Colpitts’s
case.
The legal system further classifies criminal homicide into
subtypes of murder, generally bro-
ken down into “degrees,” such as first-, second-, and third-
degree murder (or manslaughter).
These subtypes are related to the perpetrator’s mental state and
are influenced by the per-
ceived heinousness of the murder. The classification system
used by authorities to catego-
rize types of homicides and perpetrators is in place for the
purpose of record keeping and
reporting. This facilitates ease of research in terms of analyzing
whether there is something
redistribution.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-
2017/tables/table-3/table-3.xls#overview
2017/tables/table-3/table-3.xls#overview
147

fundamentally different from a behavioral and psychological
perspective between individu-
als who, for example, commit first- or third-degree murder or
between serial killers and mass
murderers.
First-Degree Murder
First-degree murder, also known as premeditated murder, refers
to the unlawful killing of
another that must have the intentional element of malice
aforethought (Garner, 2014). Mal-
ice aforethought refers to the intent to cause significant harm to
another. Premeditation
refers to planning, but it does not necessarily require a
significant amount of time to form a
plan. Premeditation can occur in an instant, according to the law
in most states. The serious-
ness of first-degree murder is such that the punishment may be
as serious as the death pen-
alty or life in prison, depending on the jurisdiction in which the
murder took place. In the case
study at the beginning of the chapter, Jessica Colpitts was found
guilty of first-degree murder
in the death of Samantha Fignani. The jury found that Colpitts
willfully, and with malice afore-
thought, intended to cause Fignani harm by ending her life with
the shotgun she brought to
Fignani’s home when Colpitts confronted her about the affair.
One type of first-degree murder is felony homicide. Felony
homicide, or a homicide that
occurs during the commission of another felony, occurs as a
form of instrumental aggression.
You will recall from Chapter 6 that instrumental aggression is
“cool” aggression and occurs as
a means to an end. In felony homicide, the central goal of the

perpetrator is typically to obtain
criminally some reward, such as cash, objects, or other desired
goods possessed by another
person. The violent behavior is a means to obtain that goal. In
the context of law, felony homi-
cide is generally conceptualized as premeditated, first-degree
murder.
Second-Degree Murder
Second-degree murder is commonly thought of as “depraved
heart/mind” murder. The legal
definition used in most states for second-degree murder reveals
the mental state underly-
ing and driving the deadly form of human behavior with the use
of words such as “depraved
mind,” “depraved heart,” and “reckless disregard” for the life of
another. Though very serious
because it is an intentional killing, it lacks the first-degree
murder element of premeditation
(Garner, 2014). Second-degree murder is punishable by life in
prison in many jurisdictions,
but the judge may opt to sentence the perpetrator to a term of
years instead of a life sentence.
One type of second-degree murder is altercation homicide.
Altercation homicide occurs as
a result of hostile aggression. Recall from Chapter 6 that hostile
aggression is “hot” aggres-
sion—that is, an impulsive reaction motivated by anger in
response to the actual or perceived
aggressive behavior of the provocateur. The underlying
motivation behind hostile aggression
is to cause harm, including homicide. In the context of the law,
altercation homicide can best
be conceptualized as “heat of passion,” second-degree murder.

See Case Study: Josiah Hadley to read about how homicide
charges take into consideration the
psychological functioning leading up to and at the time of the
crime.
redistribution.
148
Third-Degree Murder
Third-degree murder, more commonly known as manslaughter,
is defined as an unin-
tentional yet criminal homicide that lacks malice and
premeditation (Garner, 2014). Man-
slaughter is a very serious crime because human life is lost as
the direct result of the unlawful
behavior of another. However, in manslaughter the perpetrator
has significantly less culpabil-
ity than in first- or second-degree murder.
Manslaughter has two major categories: voluntary manslaughter
and involuntary man-
slaughter.
Voluntary Manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter is a “heat of passion” murder that lacks
intent to commit murder
(Garner, 2014). The most commonly used example of voluntary
manslaughter is that of a
spouse who arrives home unexpectedly to find the other spouse
having an affair and “in the

heat of passion” murders the spouse and/or the paramour.
The “heat of passion” may also be present in non–love triangle
cases, such as that of Diana
Lalchan, who shot her controlling and abusive husband,
Christopher, in the back of the head
during a verbal argument. Diana feared that her husband was
planning to kill her based on
the years of abuse she suffered. The state’s position was—and
the jury agreed—that this was
not a case of self-defense. Christopher was not physically
harming Diana at the time of the
shooting, and thus there was no imminent danger to her at that
time. However, the years of
abuse influenced Diana’s perception that she was in danger,
causing her to shoot Christopher.
The jury agreed that Diana had been abused by Christopher
previously, yet they judged her
reaction at the time of his death as “extreme.” The jury found
Diana guilty of voluntary man-
slaughter. That is, they found that in the “heat of the moment,”
Diana killed her husband to
protect herself without malicious intent to cause him harm.
Case Study: Josiah Hadley
Griselle Martinez was just 22 years old when she was killed by
her boyfriend, 24-year-old
Josiah Hadley. Martinez and Hadley were out with friends when
they began arguing. The cou-
ple returned home, and as the evening wore on, the argument
escalated to a physical alterca-
tion. A friend who was at their apartment when the physical
altercation took place told police
that he saw Hadley over Martinez’s body, punching her. Hadley
and his friends rushed Marti-
nez to the hospital, where she died.

Hadley, his parents, and Martinez’s family were grief stricken.
This was not something they
ever imagined was possible, given that Hadley was described by
everyone who knew him as a
kind, caring, deeply religious, and responsible young man.
Nevertheless, at trial the jury found
that Hadley killed Martinez with a depraved mind (i.e., showing
no regard for human life;
second-degree murder). The jury believed that as the argument
continued for hours, Hadley
became angry and lost his ability to control his own behavior.
redistribution.
149
Section 8.3 Categories, Definitions , and Statistics of Homicide
Involuntary Manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter is an accidental murder that occurs
during the commission of
an illegal act (Garner, 2014). To understand involuntary
manslaughter, let’s explore the case
of Michigan state trooper Mark Bessner, whose actions led to
the death of teenager Damon
Grimes. Bessner, in the passenger seat of his patrol vehicle
while another officer was driving,
was in pursuit of Grimes, who was riding on an all-terrain
vehicle (ATV). Bessner shot Grimes
with a Taser, leading Grimes to crash the vehicle and
subsequently die. The state asserted
that Bessner shot Grimes knowing that the Taser would render

Grimes unable to maintain
control of the ATV, thus potentially leading
to serious bodily harm, including death. The
jury was able to consider that Bessner had
previously improperly used his Taser on a
handcuffed man in another case, which was
a serious violation of police department
policy. Bessner had been disciplined by the
police department for that incident.
In this case, the jury found that Bessner did
not intend to kill Grimes but that his habit of
using his Taser unlawfully led directly to the
death of Grimes. They rendered a verdict of
guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
Determining Mental State
The key element that distinguishes between the four major legal
categories of murder we
have covered so far is the perpetrator’s psychological or mental
state at the time just prior
to, during, and sometimes even after the commission of a
homicide. It is important to under-
stand that in the criminal justice system, each victim is
considered a distinct and separate
count of murder, regardless of the type of murder the state
charges. In other words, regard-
less of the total number of victims a perpetrator murders, each
of those victims is treated as
an individual crime. Thus, if the perpetrator’s mental state
varies such that malice, premedi-
tation, and intent are different for each victim, then the type of
murder charge will reflect that.
For example, in a convenience store robbery in which the
perpetrator kills a bystander and

the clerk, each victim would be treated as a separate murder
count, and thus there would be
two murder charges. The perpetrator may face a first-degree
murder charge for planning to
rob the store and kill the clerk but perhaps a second-degree
murder charge for killing the
bystander if the perpetrator did not plan to kill the second
person at the scene.
Justifiable Homicide
Not all murders are deemed criminal. Justifiable homicide,
described as killing someone out
of necessity, occurs because the victim perceives that he or she
must defend him- or herself
from certain death.
LIVINUS/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Involuntary manslaughter, such as killing
someone during a car accident, is an example
of an accidental murder.
redistribution.
150
Section 8.4 Serial Killers, Mass Murderers, and Spree Killers
Consider the case of Ethan Gratton, who shot and killed his
friend in self-defense after the
friend and another man assaulted Gratton during an argument.
The men punched Gratton
so hard that he lost a tooth and suffered a concussion and a

broken nose. In the middle of
the attack, Gratton pulled his gun from his pocket and shot both
men, killing his friend. The
other man survived. The state prosecuted Gratton because it
believed he formed the intent
to kill. That is, the state’s position was that Gratton
premeditated his friend’s death. The jury
disagreed and acquitted Gratton at trial. Although the friend
died by Gratton’s hand, the jury
found that Gratton was justified in shooting the men in order to
defend himself from further
injury, including his own death.
8.4 Serial Killers, Mass Murderers, and Spree Killers
Additional murder classifications based on features of the crime
scene or scenes have been
identified. These are serial killers and mass murderers. Serial
killers and mass murderers are
generally charged with a single count of first-degree murder for
each individual victim. The
number of first-degree murder cases the defendant faces
depends on how many victims there
were in total. The distinguishing characteristic between a mass
murderer and a serial killer is
the elapsed time between murders.
Additionally, it is worth noting that while less than 2% of all
violent crimes are homicides,
serial murder is extremely rare, accounting for less than 1% of
all homicides (FBI, 2008).
Serial Killer
The FBI classifies a serial killer as a single perpetrator who
murders three or more people on
separate occasions. The temporal separation between murders is
often referred to as a cooling-

off period. For a historical example of a serial killer, see Case
Study: Clementine Barnabet.
Case Study: Clementine Barnabet
In January 1911 Louisiana authorities were notified of a horrific
discovery that included three
obvious homicides. There was a couple and their young son
lying in bed together. Police reports
stated that it was an incredibly gruesome scene in which the
family of three had suffered mas-
sive head injuries, leaving them barely recognizable. Also found
at the scene was a bucket full of
blood and a bloody ax. Newspaper reporters called the crime the
most brutal they had ever seen,
but it was not the last. Ax murders continued throughout 1911
and 1912 in parts of Louisiana
and neighboring Texas. Police investigated several different
men for the murders and eventually
arrested Raymond Barnabet, who was a local sharecropper with
a criminal record for relatively
minor crimes.
Raymond Barnabet, by all accounts, was not a good man. He
was controlling, possessive, and
abusive toward his wife and two children, Clementine and
Zepherin. Clementine, approximately
17 years old, was happy to talk to police about a night that her
father arrived home wearing
blood-soaked clothing. She told them that Raymond had
threatened to kill her if she revealed this
information to anyone. At trial, both Clementine and her brother
testified against their father.
(continued)

redistribution.
151
Mass Murderer
Mass murder occurs when there are multiple victims (at least
four) in a single location,
with no subsequent murder events because the murderer is
typically captured or killed
before he or she can do any additional harm (FBI, 2008).
Perhaps the most salient type of
mass murderer in recent history is that of
the mass shooter.
The deadliest mass shooting in the United
States to date is the Las Vegas massacre on
October 1, 2017, that claimed 58 lives. The
shooter, Stephen Paddock, killed himself
on the scene. The Pulse Nightclub shooting
perpetrated by Omar Mateen in Orlando,
Florida, on June 12, 2016, claimed 49 lives
and is the second most deadly mass mur-
der in U.S. history to date.
However, mass murderers do not always
kill dozens of people in public places. See
Case Study: John List for another example
of who can be considered a mass murderer.
Case Study: Clementine Barnabet (continued)
However, while Raymond was in jail and his case was working
its way through the legal system,

another ax murder took place. Once again, the murder claimed
the lives of an entire family, but
because Raymond was in jail, he was effectively ruled out as
the culprit. Police were already
suspicious of Clementine because they had found blood on
women’s clothing that was hanging
in Clementine’s room when they arrested her father. Clementi ne
asserted that her father had
wiped the blood on her clothing, but police investigators could
not verify that Clementine had
an alibi for the evening of the most recent ax murder.
Police arrested Clementine and discovered through her
confession that she had killed 35 peo-
ple over approximately a one-and-a-half-year period. According
to police, Clementine killed
these families because she believed that doing so would give
her supernatural powers. The
media suggested that the murders were part of a voodoo ritual
that Clementine and “many
others,” who were never identified, were involved in. They also
suggested that Clementine
was a high priestess in a religious cult called the Church of
Sacrifice. (The existence of such a
church has never been confirmed.) However, it is possible that
this part of the story was fab-
rication based on the racial and class biases of that era, given
that Clementine was an African
American woman in the Deep South during a time in history
when African Americans’ rights
were limited through use of curfews, segregation, and other
restrictions under the doctrine
that deemed African Americans “separate but equal.” The media
may have been creating sto-
ries that took advantage of Clementine.

In Clementine’s case, she murdered entire families (multiple
victims) at each crime scene, and
she was classified as a serial killer because there was a temporal
separation between each set
of murders. That is, Clementine murdered, then some time
passed, then she murdered again,
and so on until she was arrested.
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department/Associated Press
The interior of Stephen Paddock’s room at
Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada,
where Paddock fired on attendees of a nearby
music festival.
redistribution.
152
Spree Killer
Though the FBI murder classification system no longer uses the
term spree killer, the media
sometimes still refers to these types of killers, which is why
we’re discussing it here. Spree
killer was defined as someone who murders multiple people
over a short time period but
in different geographic locations with no cooling-off period
between murders. However, the
FBI received much criticism about the arbitrary definition of a
cooling-off period (FBI, 2008).
Therefore, the FBI stopped using the term in 2005, deciding that

spree killers were actually
serial killers whose murders may occur with little to no break
between them.
To help explain why there was the third category in the first
place, the example of Dwight
Lamon Jones may be helpful. In 2018 Jones went on a
murderous rampage, killing six victims
in three Arizona cities over a 5-day period before killing
himself. All the victims were profes-
sionals who were either directly or indirectly involved in
Jones’s divorce proceedings years
earlier. It is important to note that, even though prior to 2005 he
would have been considered
a spree killer, in the context of the current FBI murder
classification typology, Jones’s category
is serial killer because his homicides took place over a short
time period.
Case Study: John List
In 1971 New Jersey accountant John List shot and killed his
family of five, including his wife,
a teenage daughter, two teenage sons, and his own mother. It
was weeks before neighbors
became concerned that they had not seen anyone entering or
leaving the home and reported it
to police. When police entered the home, they heard loud organ
music playing over the home’s
intercom system. In addition to discovering the five victims in
the home, police also discovered
a five-page letter that List wrote to his pastor stating that he
perpetrated the murders because
he “had seen too much evil in the world” and wanted to save the
souls of his family members.
Between the murders and the police entering the home, List

changed his identity to avoid
being found. He changed his name to Robert Clark and started a
new life in Virginia, where he
lived quietly for approximately 18 years. In 1989 the FBI
broadcast List’s case on a television
show called America’s Most Wanted, asking for the public’s
assistance in locating John List.
A woman in Virginia called the tip line and reported that her
neighbor, Robert Clark, looked
remarkably similar to the age-progressed image shown to
viewers.
Thanks to the tip, the FBI finally captured List, who was
working as an accountant, had remar-
ried, and was active in his local church. At trial, the jury found
List guilty of five counts of
murder, and he received five separate life sentences, one for
each of the victims. List later
stated that he killed his family instead of himself because he
feared that suicide would prevent
him from going to Heaven, where he was hoping to be reunited
with the family members he
murdered.
Although List fatally shot his victims and this is the mode of
death in many all-too-familiar
mass murder cases, he carried out the crime in the privacy of his
own home instead of a public
venue. Nevertheless, List fits the FBI definition of mass
murderer because he killed five people
in a single location with no cooling-off period between the
murders. Moreover, there is no evi-
dence that List committed any subsequent murders at any other
location.

redistribution.
153
Section 8.5 Family Violence
8.5 Family Violence
According to the UCR, in most of the 15,129 murders that were
solved in the United States in
2017, the perpetrators were known to the victim either as an
acquaintance or family member,
with only 9.7% of the cases being committed by a stranger (FBI,
2018). This indicates that
family and intimate partner violence are a leading cause of
death by homicide. Figure 8.1
shows homicide victims by relationship to the perpetrator.
Figure 8.1: Homicide victims by their relationship
In this figure, the bar graphs and pie chart visually represent the
relationships of the 15,129 murder
victims to their offenders in 2017.
From “UCR Supplemental Homicide Data 2017,” by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, n.d. (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the
-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/expanded-
homicide).
Husband
Wife
Mother

Father
Son
Daughter
Brother
Sister
Other family
100 200 300 400 500 6000
Family
Other known
Acquaintance
Friend
Boyfriend
Girlfriend
Neighbor
Employee
Employer
100 200 300 400 500 6000
110

549
169
186
253
179
98
27
296
2,999
6
17
114
488
431
181
Stranger
1,469 victims
Family
1,867 victims

Unknown
7,557 victims
Other known
4,236 victims
28.0%
50.0%
12.3%
9.7%
redistribution.
2017/topic-pages/expanded-homicide
2017/topic-pages/expanded-homicide
154
Family violence is the umbrella term for any type of family
violence in which there are a
small but significant number of family members who are
emotionally or physically abused
or killed at the hands of another member of the family. These
can include intimate partner
violence, familicide, filicide, and parricide.
It is difficult to get accurate data on the prevalence of the latter
three types of homicides, per-

haps because they are so rare and are not necessarily
distinguished from other types of family
violence when the data are collected and recorded.
Intimate Partner Violence
According to the National Coalition Against
Domestic Violence (NCADV; 2019), approxi-
mately 10 million people annually experi-
ence intimate partner violence. Intimate
partner violence (previously known as
domestic violence) is the deliberate intimi-
dation of a romantic partner—current or
former—that can include physical, sexual,
or other violence and abusive behavior as
a means of gaining or asserting dominance
and control over the person (NCADV, 2019).
Intimate partner violence is an all-inclusive
term meant to update the term domestic
violence to include same-sex partners and
others who may or may not be married or
residing in the same household. This abuse
is frequently systematic with varying degrees of severity. That
is, for some victims the abuse
is psychological and emotional, never resulting in physical
injury. For others the abuse is
physical, leading to injury and possibly even death.
The NCADV (2019) reports that, on average, 1 in 3 female
murder victims are killed by an
intimate partner, in contrast to 1 in 20 male victims who are
killed by an intimate partner.
Nearly half of all female homicide victims are killed by a
current intimate partner or a for-
mer partner, with approximately 10% of these homicide victims
experiencing violence at the

hands of their murderer in the 30 days prior to being killed
(Petrosky et al., 2017). However,
intimate partners were not the only individuals murdered in at
least some of these homicide
cases. Approximately 20% of all murder victims were friends,
family, and/or acquaintances
of domestic violence victims and were murdered because they
were somehow related to or
intervened on behalf of the victim (NCADV, 2019).
See Case Study: Robert McCoy to read about a case in which
intimate partner violence led to
multiple homicides.
AntonioGuillem/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Physical or sexual intimidation of a romantic
partner is known as intimate partner violence.
Left unchecked, this can lead to intimate
partner homicide.
redistribution.
155
Familicide
Familicide is a murder-suicide in which the murderer is a family
member who kills multiple
family members and then kills him- or herself. To understand
this type of family violence, let’s
explore the case of Terry Strawn.

Strawn was named Hillsborough County, Florida, Officer of the
Year in 2009. He worked
effectively as a police officer for many years before his
retirement in 2016. However, family
financial issues caused him to return to the sheriff ’s department
as a school resource officer.
Strawn’s goal was to help improve school security in the wake
of the mass shooting at another
Florida school in 2018.
On the morning of December 19, 2018, Strawn broadcast over
his police radio, admitting to
killing his wife, daughter, and granddaughter and revealing the
locations of their bodies. He
went on to say that he loved the sheriff ’s department but was
despondent and intended to
take his own life at a high school that was near the locations of
the three murders he com-
mitted earlier that day. His colleagues arrived at the high
school, but despite their best efforts
to stop him, Strawn killed himself. Further investigation showed
that the family had filed for
bankruptcy protection a few years earlier and may have been
having significant financial
issues.
Regardless of the underlying reasons, Strawn committed
familicide—he murdered his family
and then killed himself.
Case Study: Robert McCoy
Yolanda McCoy separated from her controlling and abusive
husband, Robert McCoy, in 2008.
One day as she arrived home from work, her estranged husband
was waiting for her inside

her new residence. He put a knife to her throat and held
Yolanda and their 1-year-old child
hostage. Yolanda was eventually able to contact the police, but
before they arrived, Robert fled
the scene.
Fearing for her life, Yolanda took her teenage son from a
previous relationship to her parents’
home in a neighboring city because she believed he would be
safe there. Yolanda then moved
to a nearby city with her 1-year-old with the hope that the
police would soon capture Robert
and he would go to jail. However, despite their best efforts, the
police had been unsuccessful
in locating him.
Approximately 2 weeks after holding Yolanda hostage, Robert,
armed with a gun and furious
that he could not find Yolanda, went to her parents’ home and
demanded that they tell him
Yolanda’s whereabouts. Yolanda’s mother immediately called
911, and she was heard on the
recording saying, “She’s not here, Robert. Robert, Yolanda is
not here.” A voice believed to
be Robert’s was shouting in the background, and then there
were gunshots fired. Yolanda’s
mother, stepfather, and teenage son, Gregory, were all killed
execution style. Witnesses saw
Robert running from the home, and the police later recovered
his abandoned car near the
scene.
Eventually, Robert was captured, tried, and sentenced to
Louisiana’s death row to serve three
death sentences, one for each of the three murders he is alleged
to have committed.

redistribution.
156
Parricide
Parricide is the killing of one’s parents. Recall Figure 8.1,
which shows that in 2017, 169
homicide victims were the mother of the perpetrator and 186
were the father of the perpetra-
tor (FBI, 2018).
To put these data into context, for the year 2017, less than 1%
(about 0.02%; 355 cases) of
total homicides in the United States were perpetrated by
children on a parent. It may seem
that these low numbers do not accurately reflect the reality of
the situation, due to the fact
that when cases like these occur, they are covered extensively
by the media. We tend to hear
about these cases more frequently and in more detail than with
many other homicide cases,
and they become salient to us because of the level of shock and
distinctiveness from other
types of homicides.
Consider the case of Andrea Balcer, who was
just 17 years old when she killed her par-
ents in Winthrop, Maine. Andrea was strug-
gling with psychological stress because she
believed that her parents would be unsup-

portive of her desire to transition from male
to female. According to Andrea, she “snapped”
and killed both of her parents but spared her
brother, Christopher, who later advocated
against Andrea for a harsh sentence, citing
her lack of remorse. The state charged Andrea
as an adult in part due to the brutality of the
crime, which included Andrea stabbing her
mother in the back repeatedly as her mother
was giving her a hug.
To avoid trial and a possible life sentence for each murder,
Andrea accepted a plea bargain
for a term of 40 years in prison. The judge rejected her mental
health mitigation, stating that
many individuals struggling with lack of support from family
and community when they expe-
rience psychological stress surrounding gender identity do not
use this as an excuse to kill.
In parricide cases, there is often a teenage perpetrator who
believes that if his or her parents
were dead, he or she could go on to live a life free of parental
oppression.
Filicide
Filicide involves cases in which parents kill their children. In
2017 approximately 432 homi-
cide victims were children who were murdered by their parents
(about 0.03%). Figure 8.1
also shows that sons were killed by a parent in 253 cases and
daughters were killed by a par-
ent in 179 cases.
Consider the case of Julie Schenecker. For most of her life,
Schenecker had suffered from bipo-
lar disorder possibly with psychotic features (see Chapter 2 for

more information on this
disorder). However, no one believed she would ever harm her
children. While her husband,
Robert F. Bukaty/AP/Associated Press
Andrea Balcer delivers a statement in 2018
before being sentenced to 40 years for killing
her parents 2 years prior.
redistribution.
157
Section 8.6 Demographics of Homicide
Parker, was in the army stationed overseas, Julie drove her 13-
year-old son, Beau, to soccer
practice, and she fatally shot him while in the car for “talking
back.” After killing Beau, Sche-
necker turned the car around to go back home. When she
arrived, she went inside and fatally
shot her 16-year-old daughter, Calyx. When the children’s
grandmother became concerned
that she could not reach Schenecker or the kids, she had police
do a welfare check at the home.
The police discovered Beau’s body still in the SUV where he
was killed, and they discovered
Calyx covered with a sheet on her bed. Police also discovered a
journal of Schenecker’s in
which she wrote about planning to kill the children. At trial, the
jury rejected Schenecker’s

insanity defense, citing the premeditated plan to kill the
children. (An insanity defense is
one in which the defendant asserts in court that he or she could
not appreciate the criminal
nature of his or her actions at the time of the crime or did not
understand the difference
between right and wrong, as a direct result of mental defect.)
Schenecker was sentenced to
life in prison.
Assessing Balcer’s and Schenecker’s Mental States
In Balcer’s and Schenecker’s cases, there were indications that
each was suffering from either
psychological stress or a mental disorder. However, in the
criminal justice system, mental
state is considered within the context of whether there was
intent to kill, premeditation, and/
or malice.
In Maine, where Balcer was sentenced, the law includes only
one statute that criminalizes
almost all types of murder. The statute includes the previously
discussed components of first-
and second-degree murder, as well as manslaughter.
Presumably, the defendant is sentenced
based on what facts in evidence show the perpetrator’s mental
state at the time of the crime.
In the Balcer case, she plead guilty to two counts of murder,
one for each of her parents. She
was sentenced to 40 years for each homicide.
In Florida, where Schenecker was sentenced, there is a separate
statute for each type of crimi-
nal homicide discussed earlier in this chapter. Although there
was evidence presented at trial
that Schenecker’s criminal behavior was likely attributable to

psychiatric dysfunction, as evi-
denced by her taking psychotropic medications to treat bipolar
disorder, the jury found her
guilty of first-degree murder. They decided that Schenecker’s
mental state at the time of the
crime included the premeditated attempt to murder her children
with malice aforethought.
Due to Florida’s criminal justice system mandate that anyone
found guilty of first-degree
murder must serve a life sentence without parole, the jury’s
verdict left the judge no option
other than to sentence Schenecker to two life sentences without
the possibility of parole.
8.6 Demographics of Homicide
There are a number of demographic variables correlated with
homicidal behavior, including
race, age, gender, and socioeconomic status. Overall, it is
important to consider how demo-
graphic, biopsychosocial, and other situational factors impact
crime and its prevention.
redistribution.
158
Race
Perhaps the most controversial of the demographic variables
associated with homicide is
that of race, ethnicity, and culture. This variable is
controversial because criminal justice data

show consistently that African Americans are overrepresented
as defendants in the crimi-
nal justice system. As of July 1, 2018, the U.S. African
American population was estimated
at 13.1% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). According to the UCR
homicide data on race, 54.2% of
perpetrators were African American, a startling figure
considering that less than 15% of the
U.S. population is African American (FBI, 2018). Clinical
psychology research informs us that
there are no significant differences in the behavioral and mental
health functioning of indi-
viduals based on race. A lack of behavioral and psychological
differences suggests that the
racial inequities may be due to explicit and implicit racial
biases (Goel, Rao, & Shroff, 2016;
Hetey & Eberhardt, 2014; Kay et al., 2009).
Hetey and Eberhardt (2018) examined factors related to racial
disparities in the criminal jus-
tice system. The primary goal of the research was to identify
areas of psychology research
that may mitigate the effects of inherent racial bias in the
criminal justice system. One popular
intervention is to widely disseminate information on racial
inequality in the criminal jus-
tice system to the masses. However, social psychology
researchers have found that educating
White people about observable racial bias in the criminal justice
system caused them to be
more punitive instead of less punitive when the defendant was
Black (Hetey & Eberhardt,
2014; Peffley & Hurwitz, 2007).
Hetey and Eberhardt (2018) proposed that additional research be
undertaken on three key

interventions in an effort to effectively communicate
information about racial disparities and
develop interventions that will reduce or eliminate negative
stereotype activation. These pro-
posed areas of research are (a) the best ways to offer context
when presenting statistics on
racial disparity; (b) how to effectively challenge negative
implicit associations based on race
(e.g., reduce or eliminate implicit bias); and (c) how to
highlight the roles that institutions, as
opposed to individuals, have in facilitating and perpetuating
racial disparities in the criminal
justice system.
Age
Although the scope of this chapter focuses on adult homicide
perpetrators (juvenile perpetra-
tors are discussed in Chapter 7), it is important to note that even
adult homicide offenders
tend to be young. When examining homicide cases in which a
perpetrator has been identified,
approximately 54% of homicide perpetrators are aged 20 to 34,
with more than three quar-
ters of this group falling under age 29 (FBI, 2018).
Gender
The overwhelming majority (88.1%) of homicide offenders are
male (FBI, 2018). However,
there are differences between male and female homicide
perpetrators based on who they
tend to kill. Data show that more than half of female homicide
offenders murder an intimate
partner or family member, whereas about 75% of male offenders
are significantly more likely
to kill an acquaintance or a stranger (Fox & Fridel, 2017).

redistribution.
159
A potential gap in the gender variable reporting is that data are
collected and reported based
on male–female gender categories even though an increasing
number of individuals identify
as gender nonconforming or transgender. There is no specific
information to determine to
which gender category transgender perpetrators (or victims) are
assigned. Therefore, cau-
tion must be used when interpreting and drawing gender-based
conclusions, as these may
be inaccurate.
An example of this conundrum is in the previously discussed
case of Andrea Balcer. Despite
the fact that Balcer identifies as a female, her legal name is
Andrew, and she has not under-
gone sex reassignment surgery (which is currently required in
the state of Maine to change
gender on a birth certificate). Therefore, the Maine Department
of Corrections has placed
Balcer in a male prison facility under her legal name of Andrew
Taney Balcer and has listed
her gender as male (State of Maine Department of Corrections,
2019).
Socioeconomic Status
Though socioeconomic status is discussed in more depth in

Chapter 4, it bears mention-
ing here that poverty is a key risk factor in predicting criminal
behavior, including homi-
cide. Although social class and poverty are
not adequate predictors of future criminal
behavior on their own, when combined
with additional variables—such as access to
weapons and repeat exposure to violence—
they are typically cited as an underlying risk
factor for homicidal behavior.
Many children who grow up in high-crime
and high-violence areas will not go on to
commit homicide. However, research sug-
gests that the greater the exposure to vio-
lence and crime, the greater the likelihood
of engaging in criminal behavior, including
homicide. This is attributable to a lack of
financial, medical, and social resources.
Access to Weapons
Although access to weapons and the use of a weapon by
homicide perpetrators is not a
demographic variable, weapon accessibility is a strong predictor
of violent behavior, includ-
ing homicide. In 2017 approximately 73% of homicides were
committed using a firearm,
the majority of which were handguns (FBI, 2018). This number
has increased from 2013,
in which a firearm was the weapon used in approximately 69%
of homicides. The next most
frequently used weapon in homicides in 2017—though
significantly less than firearms—was
knives/cutting instruments, at 11%.
gorodenkoff/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Studies indicate that the more individuals are
exposed to violence, the greater the odds are
that they will commit violent crimes. This,
combined with low socioeconomic status, is a
risk factor for criminal behavior.
redistribution.
160
Section 8.7 Criminal Recidivism Among Homicide Offenders
Another sobering statistic is that for children age 18 and under,
gunshot wounds are the lead-
ing cause of death by homicide (N = 680; FBI, 2018). More than
half of these homicides were
perpetrated on victims ages 13 to 16. For young adults ages 18
to 22, the total number of
homicides by gunshot wound is more than double that of the 18
and under group (N = 1,551
vs. N = 680).
Given the increase in mass murder via gun violence in the past
several years, there is much
public debate about gun control. The public discourse tends to
suggest that if there are no
guns, there will be no violent crime or violent crime wi ll be
greatly reduced. It is important
to understand that neither guns nor any other type of weapons
cause homicides. However,
the data show a strong association between accessibility to
weapons and homicides. That is,

it may be that the availability of firearms and the laws that
entitle people to carry firearms
contribute to deaths by gunshot wound.
8.7 Criminal Recidivism Among Homicide Offenders
Perhaps the strongest influence on criminal homicide behavior
is the power of the situation.
That is, even with someone who has no discernible biological or
developmental risk factors
that may lead us to believe he or she is capable of killing, the
way a situation is structured can
be a predictor of homicidal behavior. Important considerations
are whether the perpetra-
tor is under the influence of alcohol or recreational drugs,
whether he or she is provoked or
despondent, or any number of other situational factors that have
a strong and direct impact
on his or her behavior.
Although it could be helpful to be able to predict with precision
what combination of situ-
ational, biological, and developmental factors may lead to
homicide, the best that criminal
psychology researchers can do is evaluate past cases for
indicators of similar characteristics
among killers and their homicides. A historical gap in the
research is that most homicidal
behavior research focuses on serial killers and mass murderers,
with very little research on
the characteristics of individual killers. However, researchers in
New Jersey examined indi-
vidual killers in relation to recidivism (the tendency of an
individual to relapse into criminal
behavior) and what drove them to kill in the first place,
providing us with a novel typology of
what drives someone to kill.

Roberts, Zgoba, and Shahidullah (2007) conducted a study of
more than 300 perpetrators
of homicide who had been released from New Jersey state
prisons from 1990 to 2000. The
researchers tracked these individuals for 5 years to measure
their recidivism rates. They
hypothesized that homicide perpetrators who had no criminal
history prior to their murder
charge would be the least likely to return to prison. Their
findings identified four major homi-
cide perpetrator types.
1. perpetrators who killed someone during a family violence
incident (family violence
homicide offenders)
2. perpetrators who killed during the commission of another
felony such as armed rob-
bery (felony homicide offenders)
redistribution.
161
Summary and Conclusion
3. perpetrators who killed someone during the course of an
automobile accident (typi-
cally DUI related; accidental homicide offenders)
4. perpetrators who killed as a result of provocation
(altercation-precipitated homicide

offenders)
Overall, none of the offenders committed another homicide.
However, many of these individu-
als committed other crimes, including violent or drug-related
offenses. The highest recidi-
vism rates were observed in the felony homicide group,
followed by the group of homicide
perpetrators who were provoked by an altercation. Only 10% of
the family violence homicide
offenders recidivated due to a new violent or drug-related
offense.
These categories are helpful for understanding what some
precipitating factors may be for
homicidal behavior, along with whether these individuals are
likely to kill again.
Regardless of the variables that lead to homicide, this deadly
form of violence is one that
shocks and fascinates the public conscience. Though it may
seem that homicides occur fre-
quently, the data show that homicides are rare, depending on
where in the United States one
resides. Recall the availability heuristic, which refers to the
likelihood that individuals over-
estimate the prevalence of certain events based on how easily
these events come to mind.
It’s important to remember that there are different types of
criminal homicide. For example,
the chapter covered several subcategories of murder, including
first- and second-degree
murder. While any type of homicide is serious, first-degree

murder cases are commonly
considered among the most serious and heinous crimes.
People who have murdered more than one victim are also
classified into different categories
based on the patterns of their murders. A mass murderer kills
four or more people at one
location during one continuous time period, while spree killers
murder two or more victims
at more than one location. Finally, serial killers murder three or
more victims, and each vic-
tim is murdered on separate occasions.
The chapter also discussed family violence, which includes
intimate partner violence,
familicide, parricide, and filicide. Though these types of
homicides are rare, it is important to
understand the context in which they occur.
Although demographic and other psychosocial variables are
merely correlational when mea-
sured in conjunction with homicides, the chapter discussed race,
age, gender, socioeconomic
status, and access to weapons in an effort to identify variables
that may lead to violence and
homicide.
Although television, movies, and true crime stories fascinate
and provide interesting enter-
tainment, it is important to remember that homicide is a major
trauma to the loved ones
of victims. Therefore, criminologists, psychologists, law
enforcement, and other interested
stakeholders continue to examine homicidal behavior in an
effort to devise interventions to
prevent and significantly reduce homicides.

redistribution.
162
Critical Thinking Questions
1. Why aren’t all homicides deemed criminal?
2. Discuss the issue of racial bias as it relates to the association
between race and
homicide.
3. Discuss the accessibility of firearms as a predictor of
homicide. Which demographic
group is the most likely to die of gunshot wounds in the United
States?
4. Think about the region in which you live. Does the media
frequently run news sto-
ries about homicides, or are these types of stories infrequent?
Consider the availabil-
ity heuristic.
Key Terms
altercation homicide A type of homicide
that occurs as a result of the perpetrator
feeling intense anger and provocation.
Considered “heat of passion,” second-degree
murder.

availability heuristic The likelihood that
individuals overestimate the prevalence of
certain events based on how easily these
events come to mind.
criminal homicide A murder that contains
the element of intention to cause the
death of another and is considered neither
excusable nor justifiable.
familicide A murder-suicide in which the
murderer is a family member who kills
multiple family members and then kills him-
or herself.
family violence An umbrella term used to
describe any type of family violence in which
there are a small but significant number
of family members who are emotionally or
physically abused or killed at the hands of
another member of the family, such as in
intimate partner violence, familicide, filicide,
and parricide.
felony homicide A homicide that occurs
during the commission of another felony,
which is typically a crime to obtain some
reward such as cash, objects, or other
desired goods possessed by another person.
Considered first-degree murder.
filicide A type of homicide in which a
parent murders his or her child or children.
first-degree murder The unlawful killing
of another that must have the intentional

elements of malice aforethought and
premeditation.
intimate partner violence The deliberate
intimidation of a romantic partner—current
or former—that can include physical, sexual,
or other violence and abusive behavior as
a means of gaining or asserting dominance
and control over the person. Previously
known as domestic violence.
involuntary manslaughter An accidental
murder that occurs during the commission
of an illegal act. Considered a category of
third-degree murder.
justifiable homicide The act of killing
someone out of necessity. Occurs because
the victim perceives he or she must defend
him- or herself from certain death.
redistribution.
163
malice aforethought The intent to cause
significant harm to another.
manslaughter See third-degree murder.
mass murder A type of murder that occurs

when there are multiple victims (at least
four) in a single location with no subsequent
murder events.
parricide A type of homicide in which a
child murders his or her parent(s).
premeditation The planning of a homicide.
Does not necessarily require a significant
amount of time to form a plan.
second-degree murder An act of
intentional killing that lacks the first-
degree murder element of premeditation.
Commonly thought of as “depraved heart/
mind” murder.
serial killer A single perpetrator who
murders three or more people on separate
occasions.
spree killer A term no longer used by
the FBI, but when used by the media, it is
defined as someone who murders multiple
people over a short time period in different
geographic locations with no cooling-off
period between murders.
third-degree murder Commonly known
as manslaughter; an unintentional yet
criminal homicide that lacks malice and
premeditation. Its two major categories are
voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.
voluntary manslaughter A “heat of
passion” murder that lacks intent to commit

murder. Considered a category of third-
degree murder.
redistribution.
redistribution.
33
3Psychopathy
Science Photo Library/SuperStock
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to
• Summarize the historical background of psychopathy and its
relation to antisocial personality
disorder.
• Discuss the contributions of Robert Hare and the factors in the
PCL-R.
• Explain the relationship between psychopathy and criminal
behavior.
• Distinguish between juvenile and adult psychopathy.

• Analyze why the study of psychopathy in relation to crime has
been so controversial.
• Examine how psychopathy is studied worldwide.
• Describe the treatment outcomes for psychopathic offenders.
redistribution.
34
Introductory Case Study: Scott Peterson
Introductory Case Study: Scott Peterson
Laci Peterson was 8 months pregnant when she went missing
from her Modesto, California,
home on Christmas Eve morning in 2002. That day, a neighbor
found Laci’s dog wandering the
neighborhood, which was unusual because Laci either walked
the dog on the leash or left it in
the backyard. Scott Peterson, her husband, claimed that he was
out fishing that day and arrived
home later that evening to find that Laci was not there. Scott
contacted Laci’s mother, Sharon,
asking if Laci was at her house. Sharon, who had not seen or
heard from Laci that day, knew
immediately that something must be wrong and contacted
police. When Laci did not show up for
Christmas celebrations with her family, a massive search
ensued. However, the mystery of what
happened to Laci Peterson would go on for several months.

Scott Peterson’s behavior was suspicious to police because he
seemed entirely too calm and
unconcerned, despite the fact that his very pregnant wife was
missing. Laci’s family and friends
vehemently denied that Scott could have had anything to do
with Laci’s disappearance because
he always seemed so loving and kind. By all accounts, Scott
appeared to be a devoted husband
and father-to-be. He was also charming, well liked, and had a
good job—and Laci adored him.
The family was convinced that Scott was heartbroken over
Laci’s disappearance. However, it
wasn’t long before it was discovered that Scott was not who he
appeared to be.
During the course of the investigation, it was discovered that
Scott had had numerous extramar-
ital affairs. Amber Frey, one of the women he was involved
with, recognized Scott from the news
coverage of Laci’s disappearance. Scott, who traveled
frequently for work, met Amber not too
long before Laci’s disappearance and claimed that he was a
single man looking for a romantic
life partner. The story he told Amber was that he had been
married, his wife had died, and this
would be his first Christmas as a widower. Laci was alive and
well at the time, preparing for the
birth of her and Scott’s first child. When Amber saw the news
coverage, she realized that she had
been duped and contacted Modesto police.
Several months after Laci’s disappearance, police finally
recovered her body. When police found
Scott, it appeared that he was attempting to flee. Scott had dyed
his dark hair blonde. In his car
he had $15,000, Viagra pills, camping equipment, four different

cell phones, and his brother’s
driver’s license. Scott was arrested, put on trial, and ultimately
found guilty of first-degree mur-
der. He was sentenced to death for the murder of Laci and her
unborn baby. He continues to
maintain his innocence despite overwhelming evidence that he
was the killer.
One of the more fascinating things about Scott Peterson is that
he was able to fool so many into
believing that he was a doting and caring husband who was
excited about the upcoming birth
of a new baby. He also successfully convinced women that he
was single or widowed and broken-
hearted over the loss of his wife. He easily manipulated their
emotions and made them believe
he was the perfect romantic partner. He was living a double life.
As you read this chapter, consider the following questions
regarding this case:
1. Why do you think Scott perpetrated such an elaborate
scheme?
2. How can we make sense of a crime such as this? What might
explain Scott’s behavior?
3. How can someone capable of planning and executing such a
sinister crime appear so
normal and likable?
redistribution.
35

Section 3.2 Identifying and Defining Psychopathy
3.1 Introduction
Of all the psychological theories of crime, none has the
controversy, intrigue, empirical inter-
est, or panache of psychopathy (pronounced sai-kah-path-ee). It
is among the most studied,
misunderstood, and fascinating constructs —especially to the
general public—as well as the
most directly related to antisocial behavior.
More than any other scholarly area in criminol-
ogy, psychopathy has a sensationalistic tradition
that focuses on the overwhelmingly negative traits.
Because psychopathy presents an individual who
is without conscience, guilt, or remorse and is
seemingly without “normal” emotional responses
to others, it closely matches the personality pro-
file of extremely violent offenders, such as sexual
homicide offenders who receive extensive news
and media coverage. Many of the most violent and
troubled criminal offenders portrayed on television
programs (such as Criminal Minds and The Assassi-
nation of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story) and
in films (such as American Psycho and Gone Girl)
exhibit clear psychopathic traits. A historical exam-
ple is Edward Theodore “Ed” Gein, whose crimes
were considered so heinous that they have been
replicated in Psycho, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,
and The Silence of the Lambs.
This chapter will demonstrate, however, that psychopathy’s
reputation is not simply media
driven. The empirical evidence that links psychopathy and
psychopathic personality fea-

tures to various forms of antisocial behavior is extraordinary.
Across a range of popula-
tions, samples, and study groups selected from multiple nations,
communities, and clinical
contexts, psychopathy has been shown to predict delinquency,
crime, violence, institutional
misconduct, recidivism, and predatory behavior. This chapter
examines the essential char-
acteristics of psychopathy, the biological and environmental
factors that contribute to it,
the interesting scholarly history of studies of the construct, and
its relation to maladaptive
behavior and crime.
3.2 Identifying and Defining Psychopathy
Psychopathy is a personality disorder that is characterized by a
coherent set of affective
deficits, lifestyle factors, interpersonal deficits, and behaviors
that strongly correlate with
antisocial behavior. The prevalence—or proportion (represented
as a percentage) of a popu-
lation or sample that has or presents a particular condition—of
psychopathy in the general
population is quite low, at approximately 1% (Neumann & Hare,
2008). The prevalence of
psychopathy among prisoners, however, is substantively higher,
falling in the range of 25% to
40%. Among the most violent criminal offenders, its prevalence
is even higher (DeLisi, 2005;
Hare, 1993, 1996; Hare & Neumann, 2008).
Everett Collection/SuperStock
Ed Gein’s crimes inspired the films
Psycho, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,
and The Silence of the Lambs.

redistribution.
36
Throughout human history, there have been
countless examples of individuals who not
only engage in severe forms of violent behav-
ior but also appear to lack the normal emo-
tional responses to committing such acts.
Unlike psychotic individuals—who lack the
cognitive understanding of right from wrong
due to psychiatric disturbance or disordered
thought, as in the case of schizophrenia—
psychopathic individuals know right from
wrong and commit antisocial behavior none-
theless (Meloy & Gacono, 1998). In this way,
the deficits of psychopathy are not based on
sanity or cognition but on morality.
The unique moral deficits of psychopathic
individuals and the subsequent challenges
of classifying such individuals are seen
throughout the scholarly development of the study of
psychopathic personality. For instance,
Philippe Pinel (1801) is commonly identified as the first social
scientist to clinically describe
psychopathy; he used the label insanity without delirium. Other
social scientists of the 19th
century described psychopathy as “moral alienation of the

mind” (Rush, 1812, p. 358) and
“moral insanity” (Maudsley, 1898, p. 170). Because
psychopaths appeared to understand
what they were doing but not care about the harm produced
from their conduct, a moral con-
notation surrounded psychopathy that set it apart from other
psychological conditions.
Psychological Constructs
For many years, psychopathy was conceptualized by
psychiatrists as a discrete diagnostic
category. This meant that an individual either was or was not a
psychopath. This is known as
a categorical construct, in which an individual does or does not
have a particular condition.
However, all personality disorders can be understood as extreme
manifestations of normal
personality traits. Furthermore, everyone is likely to display
some of the traits of psychopa-
thy, albeit at low levels. In isolation, having one of these traits
does not mean that one is a psy-
chopath. For example, many people are impulsive or at least
display impulsive behaviors in
their daily lives. This can be seen when we eat foods that we
know are unhealthy, unthinkingly
buy an item at a department store that we do not need, or
reactively say something to a friend
or coworker that we immediately regret. In other words,
nonpsychopaths nevertheless often
display some traits of psychopathy. Because of this, clinicians
and researchers today concep-
tualize psychopathy as a continuous construct, one that is
distributed from low to high.
Moreover, psychopathy is commonly described as “psychopathic
personality” to reflect this

continuous nature, in which individuals can have some or many
of the traits of the disorder.
Psychopathy Versus Antisocial Personality Disorder
The psychopathy construct was once formally included in the
DSM. However, the most recent
versions of the DSM have replaced the term psychopathy with
antisocial personality disorder
(APD). Recall from Chapter 2 that APD is a behavioral disorder
that involves the pervasive
Nigel Norrington/Associated Press
Actor Matt Smith plays killer Patrick Bateman
in a theatrical adaptation of American Psycho.
A major marker of psychopathy is an absence
of empathy and ability to understand the
emotions of others.
redistribution.
37
pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others
occurring from around age 15
onward. It is essentially the adult culmination of adolescent
conduct disorder (a repetitive
and persistent pattern of behavior in children in which the basic
rights of others or basic
social rules are violated) and childhood oppositional defiant
disorder.

Although similar and correlated, APD and psychopathy are not
the same construct. While
the former focuses on antisocial behaviors, psychopathy is
broader, encompassing antiso-
cial behaviors along with affective, lifestyle, and interpersonal
deficits, which we’ll discuss
later. Although they are different constructs, psychopathy is a
specifier in the DSM-5. APD is
a diagnosis, whereas psychopathy is not. That is, a psychologist
cannot diagnose someone
with psychopathy. However, for the first time in DSM history,
psychopathy now appears in the
DSM under the umbrella of APD. If someone meets the criteria
for APD and exhibits additional
features of psychopathy such as those undesirable inter personal,
lifestyle, and/or affective
factors, the person can be diagnosed with APD with
psychopathic personality features. The
universe of antisocial behavior is very large (see Figure 3.1),
but many behaviors that are
potentially antisocial, such as impulsivity, are not criminal and
might not ever cause problems
for an individual.
Figure 3.1: The universe of antisocial traits
Although psychopaths attract much attention from the criminal
justice system, it is important to
recognize that only a fraction of antisocial individuals are
actually psychopathic.
Antisocial
behavior
Criminal

offenders
Antisocial
Personality
Disorder
Psychopathy
redistribution.
38
Section 3.3 Diagnosing Psychopathic Individuals
Criminal behavior is under the umbrella of antisocial behavior,
but even here it is important
to acknowledge that many criminal offenders are not necessarily
dangerous or severe in their
criminal conduct. A segment of criminal offenders has APD,
and within this population, a still
smaller segment is psychopathic. Approximately 90% of
psychopaths meet the diagnostic
criteria for APD, while only about 25% to 30% of those with
APD are also psychopathic (Mar-
tens, 2000; Shipley & Arrigo, 2001). This means that
psychopaths are statistically the rarest
in terms of their numbers but also the most severe in terms of
their conduct (DeLisi, 2009).
3.3 Diagnosing Psychopathic Individuals
Hervey Cleckley, a Rhodes scholar and psychia-
trist, became interested in studying psychopaths
and criminality to bridge a gap between the dis-

cipline of psychology and the criminal justice sys-
tem. Cleckley wrote extensively about psychopathy
throughout his career, becoming such a well-known
expert in the field that he was called on by the state
of Florida to perform a psychiatric evaluation of Ted
Bundy, the infamous serial killer and quintessen-
tial psychopath. Through his years of research and
practice, Cleckley found that psychopaths exhibited
certain behaviors and traits that will be discussed
in this section.
Cleckley’s work was expanded by psychologist Rob-
ert Hare, who had discovered Cleckley’s work when
he was completing his doctoral degree in Canada.
Hare worked in the Canadian prison system as a
master’s-level psychologist and began to notice
that the inmates consistently tried to manipulate
him. This interested him in further research and,
building on Cleckley’s psychopathy criteria, Hare
developed the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL) assess-
ment tool for clinicians to use in evaluating for psy-
chopathy. The measure was revised in 1991 and is now known
as the Psychopathy Checklist-
Revised (PCL-R). Many other psychologists have researched
psychopathy, but Cleckley’s and
Hare’s criteria are the foundation of all the research on
psychopathy. Let’s take a closer look
at their research and diagnostic criteria.
Mark Forey/Associated Press
Handsome, bright, and articulate, Ted
Bundy appeared to have everything
going for him. Of course, these positive
traits were a facade for the true Ted
Bundy, who lacked normal emotional

responses following the horrific acts
he committed.
redistribution.
39
Cleckley’s Diagnostic Criteria for Psychopathy
Hervey Cleckley, in many respects considered the patriarch of
the study of psychopathy, pub-
lished The Mask of Sanity: An Attempt to Reinterpret the So-
Called Psychopathic Personality in
1941 based on his clinical observations of psychopathic
individuals in a psychiatric facility.
Interestingly, Cleckley’s title embodies the uneven development
of the study of psychopathic
personality because it suggests that the appearance of sanity or
normal psychological func-
tioning is merely a facade. From his observations, Cleckley
developed a list of 16 diagnostic
criteria that have served as the basis for the modern scientific
study of psychopathy. Cleck-
ley’s criteria included traits such as intelligence and superficial
charm, absence of nervous-
ness, lack of remorse and shame, and poor judgment, among
others.
During this era, contemporaries of Cleckley similarly studied
individuals who presented with
a generalized set of problem behaviors, emotional and
interpersonal deficits, and general

antisociality (see Gough, 1948; McCord & McCord, 1956,
1964). The researchers all found, at
least in the case of primary psychopaths, the presence of
externalizing symptoms (i.e., when
an individual acts out toward others, such as with aggression) in
the absence of internalizing
symptoms (i.e., when an individual acts inward, such as the case
of negative emotions). That
is, psychopaths are far more likely to exhibit callousness toward
others (externalizing symp-
toms) without any guilt or remorse (internalizing symptoms).
Robert Hare and the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised
Cleckley’s conceptualization guided the study of psychopathy
for several decades and served
as the inspiration for Robert Hare and the current gold standard
for measuring psychopathy
that he developed: the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. The
Psychopathy Checklist-Revised
(PCL-R) is a clinical construct rating scale that uses
information from a semistructured inter-
view, case history information, and scoring on a 3-point scale
(0, 1, or 2) on 20 items that
relate to affective, lifestyle, interpersonal, and behavioral
factors associated with the disorder
(see Figure 3.2). Because the four factors make up the same
construct, they are significantly
correlated. The highest score on the measure is 40; the higher
an individual scores, the more
psychopathic traits he or she exhibits.
The PCL-R has been widely tested, and its validity and
reliability are strong. Validity means
that the PCL-R measures what it sets out to measure—
specifically, the existence of psychopa-
thy in an individual. Reliability refers to the PCL-R yielding the

same result over and over
each time it is administered to an individual. To be high in
reliability, the results should be
the same even if other practitioners administer the measure to
the individual. The PCL-R has
performed so well that it has engendered a family of measures,
including the Psychopathy
Checklist Screening Version (PCL: SV), the Psychopathy
Checklist Youth Version (PCL: YV),
and the Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD).
redistribution.
40
It should be noted that Hare (1993, 1996) has been instrumental
in introducing the construct
of psychopathy to both criminology and the general public. In
fact, Hare has been the central
figure in the study of psychopathy since the late 1960s and is
currently the most cited psy-
chopathy researcher in the world. (You can explore the
following website for more informa-
tion: http://www.hare.org.)
Let’s explore the PCL-R factors here.
Figure 3.2: The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised
Robert Hare’s PCL-R is the most widely used assessment of
psychopathy in clinical and correctional

populations.
Affective
factor
Antisocial
factor
Lifestyle
factor
Interpersonal
factor
Psychopathy
redistribution.
http://www.hare.org
41
The Affective Factor
Of all the characteristics of psychopathy, the affective
dimension—particularly callousness,
coldness, and lack of empathy—is arguably the most important
and unique. Indeed, in recent
years, a separate area of inquiry has focused on callous-

unemotional traits, temperamen-
tal characteristics that indicate fearlessness and lack of guilt
and can be seen in childhood,
adolescence, and adulthood. Callous-unemotional traits seem to
facilitate the ability of psy-
chopathic individuals to victimize others because these
individuals do not process or are
unaffected by their victims’ distress, pain, and suffering.
Indeed, callous-unemotional traits
are even associated with a preference for getting into trouble
and being punished, which
reflects the depth of psychopathic individuals’ emotional
deficits (Lorber, Hughes, Miller,
Crothers, & Martin, 2011).
The unique, cardinal feature of psychopathy is a deficit in affect
(the experiencing of feelings
or emotions). Callousness and lack of empathy are the absence
of compassion and understand-
ing of the feelings and emotional suffering of another person.
Failure to accept responsibil-
ity is the unwillingness to take part in the responsible
investment in another person that is
required for normal social interaction. Shallow emotion is the
absence of genuine emotion.
Lack of guilt or remorselessness is the incapacity to feel
negative emotional states, such as
guilt, shame, or regret for one’s conduct.
The Lifestyle Factor
In terms of the lifestyle factor, psychopaths display a distinct
set of features. They may have
a lack of realistic life goals, an unreasonable, unfeasible sense
of one’s life achievements rela-
tive to the investment one makes. In other words, individuals
may brag about what they are

going to accomplish despite the fact that they have not done the
necessary things to make
those accomplishments possible (such as earning more than
$200,000 per year despite not
successfully completing high school, let alone college or
graduate school). A psychopath may
also have a parasitic orientation, or the desire to exploit or live
off the material support of
another person. For example, people who live with relatives or a
significant other without
helping pay the household bills (i.e., freeloading) demonstrate a
parasitic orientation. Irre-
sponsibility is a global lack of follow-through in the basic
requirements and expectations of
functional adult roles. Impulsivity occurs when immediate
gratification of desires is preferred
to the prolonged delay of rewards. Stimulation seeking refers to
the need for novel, exciting
experiences. See Case Study: Andrew Cunanan for a look at
what drove the man to murder
fashion designer Gianni Versace.
redistribution.
42
Case Study: Andrew Cunanan
Andrew Cunanan was obsessed with the life-
styles of celebrities and other wealthy individu-
als. In the 1990s, while living in San Diego, Cali-
fornia, he associated himself with the circles of

the rich and famous and typically lived off the
wealth of others with whom he was in relation-
ships. People who knew him described him as
charming and focused on the finer things in life,
wanting to be admired and famous. He typically
lied about his origins, family, and personal his-
tory, always making things seem more sensa-
tional than they really were.
Cunanan allegedly mentioned the fashion
designer Gianni Versace often to friends and
seemed resentful of the designer’s wealth and
status yet also obsessed with him. Cunanan
murdered Versace in 1997, after killing four
other men.
Cunanan displayed traits of the lifestyle factor,
according to the PCL-R. His psychopathic ten-
dencies contributed to the murders of five peo-
ple and ultimately to his own death. His crimes
inspired the television show The Assassination of
Gianni Versace: American Crime Story.
To read more about Cunanan’s case, visit the fol-
lowing link: https://www.vanityfair.com/maga
zine/1997/09/cunanan199709.
Jeffrey Boan/FBI/Associated Press
Serial killer Andrew Cunanan
murdered five victims, including
fashion mogul Gianni Versace. Cunanan
was a pathological liar who was cold
and calculating and who enjoyed living
off other people’s money. His criminal
behaviors were featured in the 2018

television series The Assassination of
Gianni Versace: American Crime Story.
The Interpersonal Factor
The interpersonal dimension refers to the psychopathic
individual’s ability to exploit and
manipulate other people and potential victims. Glib or
superficial charm is the ability to strike
up a conversation and appear to be charming and engaging in
social settings. It is important
to note that this charm is superficial; the emotional deficits that
psychopathic individuals
present generally reduce their capacity to have true, deep
engagement with others. Narcis-
sism or grandiose self-worth is an extreme love for oneself.
Narcissism is doubly important in
that it contributes to the blind pursuit of selfish needs at the
expense of others. Pathological
lying is the repeated use of lying and deception to explain,
defend, and justify one’s conduct.
Conning or manipulation is the desire to use or exploit others
for one’s satisfaction.
redistribution.
https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1997/09/cunanan199709
https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1997/09/cunanan199709
43
Section 3.4 Psychopathy and Criminal Behavior
The Behavioral Factor
Behaviorally, psychopathic individuals display a set of

behaviors that are compatible with and
in some cases examples of antisocial conduct. Antisocial
tendencies can often lead to crimi-
nal behavior due to poor behavioral control, low self-regulation,
or inability to manage one’s
conduct in the face of rules and regulations.
Antisocial tendencies also affect early behavior problems and
juvenile delinquency—criminal
behavior occurring prior to adulthood that results in police
contacts or juvenile court refer-
ral. The psychopathic individual may also have criminal
versatility, or involvement in a range
of crime types, such as violence, property damage, drug
offending, and nuisance behaviors.
They also may have noncompliance and revocation of
conditional release, or a failure to comply
with court orders and the conditions of correctional sentences.
Correlations Between PCL-R Factors
Individuals who are extremely psychopathic tend to score highly
on each factor of the con-
struct. This means that the factors are positively correlated;
when there is strong evidence of
one factor of psychopathy, there tends to be evidence of the
others as well. In a study based on
data from nearly 7,000 participants, the affective factor is most
strongly correlated with the
interpersonal factor, and the interpersonal factor is most
strongly correlated with the affec-
tive factor (Hare & Neumann, 2008).
As mentioned earlier, narcissism embodies the preference for
the self over others, and there
is evidence that much of the variance in self-control in the
general population is attributable

to narcissism (Vaughn, DeLisi, Beaver, Wright, & Howard,
2007). Taken together, the facets
of the interpersonal factor relate to the method and motivation
that a psychopath employs
when interacting with others, and the goal of that interaction is
exploitative gain.
There are other important connections between the factors of
psychopathy as measured by
the PCL-R. The same study conducted by Hare and Neumann
(2008) found that the lifestyle
factor is most strongly correlated with the antisocial factor. In
many respects, the lifestyle
factor of the PCL-R is consistent with the general personality
approach to studying crimi-
nal behavior, especially given the importance of impulsivity and
stimulation seeking. Among
active criminal offenders, it is common to see the parasitic,
unsuccessful lifestyle manifest in
psychopathic and nonpsychopathic individuals alike.
3.4 Psychopathy and Criminal Behavior
It is difficult to overestimate the salience of psychopathy to
antisocial and criminal behavior.
In a way, the constellation of traits that constitute psychopathy
can be viewed as a recipe for
criminal behavior. Serious and violent offenders commit crimes
for very selfish reasons and
frequently display little to no concern or compassion for their
victims. Upon capture, severe
offenders frequently refuse to acknowledge their crimes or
claim responsibility for them; in
court, they commonly plead not guilty. From a lay criminal
justice perspective, this seems rou-
tine. But from a psychological perspective, these behaviors are
evidence for the narcissistic,

callous, coldhearted, and manipulative behavioral repertoire of
the psychopathic offender.
redistribution.
44
Section 3.4 Psychopathy and Criminal Behavior
As touched on at the beginning of this chapter,
the prevalence of psychopathy in prison sam-
ples is 10 to 40 times higher than in the gen-
eral population, and among the worst of the
worst of criminal offenders—such as those
who commit sexual homicide—psychopathy
is pervasive. For example, a study of sexually
violent predators found that for each point
above the mean score on the PCL-R, offenders
were 49% more likely to be civilly commit-
ted because of their level of risk. In addition,
those who scored above 30 on the PCL-R were
nearly 500% more likely to be civilly commit-
ted (Levenson & Morin, 2006). Even when
compared to other nonpsychopathic prison-
ers who have been convicted of violent felonies—such as
murder, rape, armed robbery, and
kidnapping—psychopathic prisoners stand out for their more
extensive criminal histories,
more entrenched criminal lifestyles, more antisocial attitudes
and thought patterns, more
challenging correctional needs, and greater dangerousness
(DeLisi, 2009; DeLisi & Vaughn,

2008; Hare, 1993, 1996; Simourd & Hoge, 2000).
A meta-analysis of 18 studies found that psychopathy is a
strong predictor of violent and
nonviolent recidivism and is a useful construct for identifying
dangerousness in the criminal
population (Salekin, Rogers, & Sewell, 1996). Prior research
has utilized correctional samples
of prisoners to empirically assess the predictive validity of
psychopathy to recidivism and
other correctional outcomes. Harris, Rice, and Cormier (1991)
conducted a 1-year follow-up
study of male offenders released from a psychiatric hospital and
found that not only did 80%
recidivate within 1 year, they recidivated with a violent offense.
Even more importantly, the
study showed that predictive effects of psychopathy were
stronger on these offenders than
the combined effects of 16 other variables relating to criminal
history and other covariates.
Additional evidence for the generalized relation of psychopathy
to antisocial behavior (and
thus criminal behavior) stems from the large number of study
groups and populations that
researchers have used. A study based on data from psychiatric
patients from the MacArthur
Violence Risk Assessment Study found that patients with
psychopathic personality traits
engaged in more self-directed, other-directed, and codirected
violence than their peers with
fewer psychopathic traits (Swogger, Walsh, Homaifar, Caine, &
Conner, 2012). Persons with
psychiatric disorders and psychopathy are more likely to hurt
themselves and others once
released from the hospital or other psychiatric facility.

Substantively similar findings have
been shown among forensic psychiatric patients in Sweden.
Those with more psychopathic
personalities were characterized by higher levels of recidivism
up to 8 years after their release
from treatment (Stalenheim, 2004).
In a statewide survey of institutionalized delinquents, Vaughn,
Howard, and DeLisi (2008)
reported extensive linkages between psychopathic personality
and the severity of delinquent
careers. Higher scores on psychopathy measures were associated
with higher levels of gen-
eral delinquency, more violent delinquency, greater hostile
aggression, and earlier onsets of
antisocial conduct, police contact, and juvenile court referral. In
fact, the most psychopathic
Nicola Patterson/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Psychopathy is much more prevalent
in prisons and is a strong indicator
of recidivism.
redistribution.
45
Section 3.5 Psychopathy Across the Life Span
youths were over 200% more likely to have an early onset
delinquent career than their peers
with less psychopathic features. Vaughn and DeLisi (2008)

examined the interplay between
psychopathy and career criminality in a large cohort of
institutionalized delinquent youths.
They found that career criminal youths had significantly higher
psychopathy scores; pre-
sented with more narcissism, unemotionality, fearlessness, and
impulsivity; and had greater
involvement in violent and nonviolent delinquency. Moreover,
various psychopathic traits
were associated with diverse forms of delinquent conduct, such
as violent offending, theft,
and drug use (Vaughn, Newhill, DeLisi, Beaver, & Howard,
2008).
3.5 Psychopathy Across the Life Span
For many years, the study of psychopathy mostly focused on
adults and more specifically on
adult prisoners and psychiatric patients. However, an empirical
issue was that psychopathy—
like most personality constructs—is relatively stable and
enduring. This means that psychop-
athy is not limited to adult offenders but is also present among
adolescents and even children.
A noteworthy feature of psychopathy is the lifelong
developmental course of psychopathic
traits. For instance, Robins and O’Neal (1958) conducted a 30-
year follow-up study of behav-
iorally disordered children and concluded:
A relatively circumscribed segment of the population [is]
distinguished by
a life-long failure to conform to the social mores . . . [and] it
seems probable
that criminal activities are more frequently only one expression
of a grossly

disturbed life pattern of which transiency, violence, and
unstable family rela-
tions, as well as crime, are typical. Even as children, these boys
engaged in
antisocial behavior in most contexts, were thoroughly
irresponsible, and
showed neither concern for their actions nor remorse for the
persons whom
they affected. (p. 170)
Like other psychological conditions discussed in this text (e.g.,
personality, temperament, and
neuropsychological deficits), psychopathy is relatively stable
and manifests across the life
span. For example, Gao, Raine, Chan, Venables, and Mednick
(2010) found that early parenting
trauma was associated with psychopathic personality 25 years
later, especially among chil-
dren with low maternal care and high child abuse victimization.
That early life environments
affect brain functioning vis-à-vis psychopathic personality is
chilling, given the longitudinal
stability of psychopathy. Similarly, Lynam, Charnigo, et al.
(2009) found no evidence of change
in psychopathy across childhood and adolescence among boys in
the Pittsburgh Youth Study.
Another study of more than 400 youths who became
emancipated (reached age 18 and there-
fore left foster care as adults) and thus transitioned from foster
care is illustrative of psycho-
pathic traits carrying over to adulthood (Vaughn, Litschge,
DeLisi, Beaver, & McMillen, 2008).
Those with higher psychopathic traits, particularly high levels
of narcissism and fearless non-
conformity, were more likely to commit a range of criminal acts

during adulthood, such as
drug selling, illegal money making, and assault with a weapon.
They were also significantly
more likely to accumulate arrests and be subsequently
diagnosed with antisocial personality
disorder.
redistribution.
46
Section 3.5 Psychopathy Across the Life Span
Fledgling Psychopathy
A major event in the psychological study of psychopathy as it
relates to its life-course develop-
ment occurred when Donald Lynam (1996, 1997, 1998)
presented his fledgling psychopathy
thesis. Fledgling psychopathy is a childhood-onset behavioral
style characterized by severe
conduct problems, attention and hyperactivity deficits
suggestive of combined-type attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and other features that
are consistent with the adult
conceptualization of psychopathy. In other words, fledgling
psychopathy typifies children
who concurrently have oppositional defiant disorder, conduct
disorder, and combined-type
ADHD—along with psychopathic features relating to callous
and unemotional traits. Lynam
(1997) devised the Childhood Psychopathy Scale to measure
psychopathy among children and
found that fledgling psychopathy was associated with severe

behavioral problems and delin-
quency even when considering the effects of other robust
predictors of conduct problems.
Other researchers reported similar findings. Based on a sample
of more than 400 middle
school students, DeLisi and colleagues (2011) found that about
10% of the sample was char-
acterized by fledgling psychopathic traits, including
callousness, uncaring, lack of emotion,
interpersonal deficits, self-regulation problems, and poor
academic performance. Those in
this group are most at risk for developing continued behavioral
problems because of their
various psychopathic traits.
Research has also demonstrated that fledgling psychopathic
traits as characterized by
Lynam and his colleagues predict psychopathy in later
adolescence and adulthood and are
associated with criminal careers (Lynam,
Derefinko, Caspi, Loeber, & Stouthamer-
Loeber, 2007). Based on data from boys
in the Pittsburgh Youth Study, those with
more psychopathic personality traits were
approximately 500% to 600% more likely
than their nonpsychopathic peers to dis-
play externalizing symptoms, delinquency,
and violence. Psychopathic youths also had
the most sustained, serious, violent, and
aggressive delinquent careers (Loeber et
al., 2002). Lynam, Miller, Vachon, Loeber,
and Stouthamer-Loeber (2009) later stud-
ied the construct in the Pittsburgh Youth
Study and found that childhood psycho-

pathic traits were associated with arrests
and convictions occurring through age 26.
All of this research is promising in the sense that fledgling
psychopathic youths who are the
most likely to develop into habitual criminal offenders can be
identified and treated much
earlier than in prior eras. Moreover, their psychopathic traits
can potentially be modified so
that their development veers from antisocial to more prosocial
behavior. The fact is that juve-
niles’ personalities, due to their ongoing growth and
development, may be more malleable
than adults’ personalities. Therefore, labeling a juvenile a
psychopath may be misleading to
judges who must sentence juvenile offenders.
Hemera/Thinkstock
Even for juveniles, early evidence of
psychopathic personality traits is a strong
indicator that a person will later display
symptoms of psychopathy or commit violence.
redistribution.
47
Section 3.6 Considering Gender and Race
Adult Versus Juvenile Psychopathy
Researchers from the MacArthur Foundation Research Network
(2006) found that adult mark-

ers of psychopathy are not directly applicable to juveniles due
to the developmental changes
from adolescence into adulthood. The study was conducted over
a 2-year period on juvenile
and adult offenders in secure facilities. The researchers then
compared juvenile offenders to
adult offenders whose PCL-R test scores showed that they were
either psychopathic or non-
psychopathic. In the psychopathic groups, juveniles’ scores
declined significantly over time,
whereas adults’ scores tended to remain relatively stable.
Therefore, it is advisable that psy-
chologists use discretion when attempting to measure
psychopathy in juvenile populations.
3.6 Considering Gender and Race
Hare’s PCL-R was developed and validated using a
predominantly White, male, criminal psy-
chopath test population. Therefore, it is difficult to determine
(and there is controversy sur-
rounding) whether it is a valid measure of psychopathy in
females and minorities.
Psychopathy and Gender
As previously mentioned, the overall prevalence of psychopathy
in the general population
is quite low—somewhere around 1% (Hare, 2003). The vast
majority of this group consists
of men; research shows that female psychopaths are rare
(Nicholls, Ogloff, Brink, & Spidel,
2005). It is estimated that in female jails and prisons, the
proportion of the population that
has psychopathic traits ranges from 7% to 15% (Hare, 2003;
Vitale, Smith, Brinkley, & New-
man, 2002). Salekin, Rogers, Ustad, and Sewell (1998) found
that recidivism rates of female

1438HomicideSouth_agencyE+Getty Images PlusLearn

1438HomicideSouth_agencyE+Getty Images PlusLearn

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from MerrileeDelvalle969

More from MerrileeDelvalle969 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

1438HomicideSouth_agencyE+Getty Images PlusLearn