Remaining anonymous is one of the hardest goals a murderer has, and psychopaths may have an even harder time maintaining this anonymity. The definition of a successful psychopath is a widely debated issue; some have debated that not ending up in a mental institution constitutes success, and others say that success refers to actual achievements of their lives (Stevens, et al. 141). A successful psychopath, with regards to homicide, is not being caught for their murderous crimes. Regarding purposeful manslaughter, a psychopath is far more likely to get caught for their crime because of their general nature. The personality disorder often referred to as psychopathy, is actually just an extreme version of antisocial personality disorder.The DSM-IV
…show more content…
In the court case Mudgett v. Peterson, Fred Mudgett had appealed to be released from the mental institution he resided in. This may have gone well, but he was found to have murdered a worker at the hospital (Lexis Nexis). This case proves that, even if a psychopath seems as if they are of a sound mental state, a psychopath is capable of hiding their actual mental state. Mudgett v. Pearson also shows another instance of an individual with antisocial personality disorder getting caught for murder. The case is a perfect example of a person getting caught for a murder because they were a psychopath. Mudgett’s life was being further investigated in the hospital, and his awful mistake was found out. This case shows that a psychopath is not just more likely to be caught for homicide because of their mental disorder, but they are more likely to be found out because they have repeated an …show more content…
Not getting caught for a crime in the twenty-first century is difficult, and violent crime scenes are more likely to be messy and hold mistakes. Mistakes are problematic in a crime scene for the offender because evidence can be forgotten, so criminal investigators would be able to gather this evidence an use it to catch the murderer. Studies show that the majority of crimes done by psychopaths are motivated by a sexual goal (Karpman 192). The ulterior motive, regardless of what it is, gives the offender more to cover up. A non-psychopath is not as likely to search for this extra “benefit” of their murder, making them less likely to be suspected and charged for the
In the court case Mudgett v. Peterson, Fred Mudgett had appealed to be released from the mental institution he resided in. This may have gone well, but he was found to have murdered a worker at the hospital (Lexis Nexis). This case proves that, even if a psychopath seems as if they are of a sound mental state, a psychopath is capable of hiding their actual mental state. Mudgett v. Pearson also shows another instance of an individual with antisocial personality disorder getting caught for murder. The case is a perfect example of a person getting caught for a murder because they were a psychopath. Mudgett’s life was being further investigated in the hospital, and his awful mistake was found out. This case shows that a psychopath is not just more likely to be caught for homicide because of their mental disorder, but they are more likely to be found out because they have repeated an …show more content…
Not getting caught for a crime in the twenty-first century is difficult, and violent crime scenes are more likely to be messy and hold mistakes. Mistakes are problematic in a crime scene for the offender because evidence can be forgotten, so criminal investigators would be able to gather this evidence an use it to catch the murderer. Studies show that the majority of crimes done by psychopaths are motivated by a sexual goal (Karpman 192). The ulterior motive, regardless of what it is, gives the offender more to cover up. A non-psychopath is not as likely to search for this extra “benefit” of their murder, making them less likely to be suspected and charged for the