Psychopathy Diagnosed The introduction of psychopathy as a diagnosis may have been the result of the English Mental Health Act of 1959 that legally defined psychopathic disorder as a psychological disability requiring treatment that includes traits of aggressiveness or irresponsibility (Blackburn, 1988). The purpose of the legal definition of psychopathy was to differentiate between non-psychotic and psychotic criminals (Blackburn, 1988). However, the psychiatric field refuted this concept because there were no empirically supported criteria for diagnosing psychopathic disorder, and instead suggested redefining the concept as antisocial personality (Blackburn, 1988). In 1964, McCord and McCord clinically defined psychopath as an antisocial
…show more content…
Various violence risk assessments have been utilized in court decisions for the past several decades to help jurors decide what possible punishment outcomes should be orchestrated (Plante, 2010). In the 1983 Barefoot v. Estelle Supreme Court case, psychiatrists testified regarding the risk of future dangerousness of Defendant Barefoot during his death penalty sentencing hearing (Plante, 2010). Defendant Barefoot appealed arguing that it was beyond the psychiatrist’s competency to predict dangerousness (Plante, 2010). To support Barefoot’s appeal, the APA submitted a brief indicating that mental health professionals are incorrect in risk assessment in 67% of cases (Vitacco, Erickson, Kurus, & Apple, 2012). The United States Supreme Court ruled that behavioral scientists are competent enough to predict risk of dangerousness and recidivism despite the empirical evidence suggesting the opposite (Vitacco et al., 2012). The decision was largely based on the idea that jurors should be able to make predictions about dangerousness, so excluding mental health experts would be counterintuitive (Vitacco et al., 2012). As a result, new measures to detect violence risk were constructed or revised, including the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; Harris, Rice, & Quinsey, 1993), the Historical-Clinical-Risk 20 (HRC-20; Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1998), and the PCL-R (Hare,
Various violence risk assessments have been utilized in court decisions for the past several decades to help jurors decide what possible punishment outcomes should be orchestrated (Plante, 2010). In the 1983 Barefoot v. Estelle Supreme Court case, psychiatrists testified regarding the risk of future dangerousness of Defendant Barefoot during his death penalty sentencing hearing (Plante, 2010). Defendant Barefoot appealed arguing that it was beyond the psychiatrist’s competency to predict dangerousness (Plante, 2010). To support Barefoot’s appeal, the APA submitted a brief indicating that mental health professionals are incorrect in risk assessment in 67% of cases (Vitacco, Erickson, Kurus, & Apple, 2012). The United States Supreme Court ruled that behavioral scientists are competent enough to predict risk of dangerousness and recidivism despite the empirical evidence suggesting the opposite (Vitacco et al., 2012). The decision was largely based on the idea that jurors should be able to make predictions about dangerousness, so excluding mental health experts would be counterintuitive (Vitacco et al., 2012). As a result, new measures to detect violence risk were constructed or revised, including the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; Harris, Rice, & Quinsey, 1993), the Historical-Clinical-Risk 20 (HRC-20; Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1998), and the PCL-R (Hare,