The violence of psychopaths, however, lacks normal emotional “coloring” and is likely to be precipitated by everyday events. In a recent study we examined police reports describing the circumstances surrounding the most recent violent offenses committed by a sample of male criminals, about half of whom were psychopaths.9 The violent crimes committed by the psychopaths and the other criminals differed in several important ways:
• The violence of the other criminals usually occurred during a domestic dispute or a period of intense emotional upheaval, but:
• The violence of the psychopaths frequently occurred during commission of a crime or during a drinking bout, or was motivated by revenge or retribution.
• Two-thirds of the victims of the other criminals were female family members, friends, or acquaintances, but:
• Two-thirds of the victims of the psychopaths were male strangers.
In general, psychopathic violence tends to be callous and cold-blooded, and more likely to be straightforward, uncomplicated, and businesslike than an expression of deep-seated distress or understandable precipitating factors. It lacks the “juice” or powerful emotion that accompanies the violence of most other individuals.
Perhaps the scariest aspect of psychopathic violence is the influence it has on the nature of violence in our urban centers. Muggings, drug deals gone bad, “wildings,” aggressive panhandling, gang activities, “swarming,” and attacks on designated target groups such as gays usually involve the dispassionate or unprovoked use of violence against strangers or victims of convenience. One of the models of this new wave of violence is the psychopathic thug portrayed in movies and television: “Nothing personal,” he says as he goes about his business of violent self-indulgence. As a fifteen-year-old girl put it, “I see something I want so bad I just take it. The worst time, I pulled a knife on this girl, but I never hurt anybody. I just want things.”10
A “NIGHTMARE” DRIVER plowed into a car and killed a mother and her small daughter. Witnesses reported that the driver “was rude and obnoxious after the accident. He was only concerned about it causing him to miss a date.” In the ambulance with one of his victims, a badly injured two-month-old baby, the driver—who showed no evidence of alcohol or drug use—reportedly responded to the baby’s cries with, “Can you shut the goddamn kid up?” [reported in The Province, Vancouver, April 25, 1990]
SEXUAL VIOLENCE
Rape provides a good example of the callous, selfish, and instrumental use of violence by psychopaths. Not all rapists are psychopaths, of course. Some rapists clearly are very disturbed individuals suffering from a variety of psychiatric and psychological problems. Others are the products of cultural and social attitudes that reduce women to subservient roles. The offenses of these men, although repugnant to society and horribly traumatic for the victims, may be more understandable than are those committed by psychopaths.
Perhaps half of the repeat or serial rapists are psychopaths.11 Their acts are the result of a potent mixture: uninhibited expression of sexual drives and fantasies, desire for power and control, and perception of the victims as objects of pleasure or satisfaction. This mixture is well illustrated by John Oughton, called the “paper bag rapist” by the Vancouver press (he wore a paper bag over his head when he raped children and women). Oughton was diagnosed by a court psychiatrist as both a psychopath—“lacks a conscience, is manipulative, egocentric, untruthful, and lacks a capacity for love”—and a sexual sadist who “gets sexual excitement by inflicting psychological pressure on his victims.”12
THE PSYCHOPATH
AS WIFE BATTERER
In recent years public awareness and intolerance of domestic violence have increased dramatically, resulting in aggressive prosecution and court-mandated treatment of offenders. Although the causes and dynamics of wife battering are complex and involve myriad economic, social, and psychological factors, there is some evidence that psychopaths constitute a significant proportion of persistent batterers.
In a recent study, we administered the Psychopathy Checklist to a sample of men taking part, either voluntarily or as part of a sentence, in a treatment program for wife assaulters.13 We found that 25 percent of the men in the sample were psychopaths, a percentage similar to that found in prison populations. We don’t know the percentage of psychopathic wife assaulters who do not enter treatment programs, but I suspect it is at least as high.
The suggestion that many of the men who continually assault their wives are psychopaths has serious ramifications for treatment programs. This is because the behavior of psychopaths is notoriously resistant to change (a topic I will discuss in a later chapter). The resources available to run programs for assaultive husbands usually are limited, and many treatment groups have long waiting lists. Psychopaths, more than other men, are likely to attend these programs simply to appease the courts rather than to change their behavior, and they may do little more than occupy a seat that could be better used by someone else.
Furthermore, psychopaths undoubtedly have disrupting effects on such programs. But perhaps the most disturbing consequence of sending a psychopath into such a therapy situation is the false sense of security it can engender in the assaulter’s wife. “He’s been treated. He should be better now,” she might conclude, thus missing the chance to end the abusive relationship.
MR. LEBLANC WAS convicted of assaulting his common-law wife and ordered by the court to attend a treatment group for assaultive husbands. Charming and amiable, he described the assault as a very minor—and yes, even unfortunate—altercation in which he struck out in anger during an argument with his wife. The police report, however, indicated that he had blackened her eyes and broken her nose, and that this assault was only the latest in a string of similar episodes involving many other women. In an interview prior to the start of his first treatment session he stated that he understood the problem and that all he needed was to learn some anger-management skills. He then proceeded to describe, in a pontificating way, the psychological dynamics and theories associated with family violence, and concluded that it was unlikely that the group could offer him much; however, he was willing to attend the sessions because he could help the other men gain some insight into their problems.
During the first session he casually commented that he had been a paratrooper in Vietnam, had received an MBA from Columbia University, and had started several successful business enterprises; details were sketchy. He said that his current offense was his first, and when the group leader pointed out that he had also received convictions for theft, fraud, and embezzlement, he smiled and said that they were all the result of petty misunderstandings.
He dominated the group discussions and spent most of his efforts in rather superficial, “pop psych” analyses of the other men. The group leader found him interesting, but most of the others were usually frustrated by his intellectual arrogance and aggressive manner. After a few sessions he dropped out of the group, and reportedly left the city, in clear violation of the court order against him. His claims to be a graduate of Columbia University and to have served in Vietnam turned out to be false.
THE REAL TEST: CAN WE
PREDICT THEIR BEHAVIOR?
In capital murder cases in Texas, forensic psychiatrist James Grigson, “Dr. Death,” routinely testifies that psychopathic murderers are certain to kill again.14 As a result, there is no shortage of occupants for the cells on death row.
Grigson’s certainty is offset by the belief, held by many clinicians and policy makers, that criminal behavior and violence cannot be predicted accurately.
As usual, the truth lies somewhere between these extremes. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that people who have a history of criminality or violence are more dangerous than others. A good predictor of what someone will do in the future is what he or she has done in the past, a maxim that provides the basis for many of the decisions made by the criminal justice system.
Evidence from at least half a dozen recent studies clearly
demonstrates that predictions about criminal and violent behavior can be improved considerably if we also know whether the individual is a psychopath, as defined by the Psychopathy Checklist.15 These studies looked at the recidivism rates (commission of new offenses) of federal offenders following their release from prison. These studies show that, on average:
• The recidivism rate of psychopaths is about double that of other offenders.
• The violent recidivism rate of psychopaths is about triple that of other offenders.
An area of great concern to the public is the release on parole of sexual offenders. As I indicated earlier, it is important to distinguish between sexual offenders who are psychopaths and those who are not. The importance of this distinction for parole boards is highlighted by a recent study of rapists released from prison following an intensive treatment program.16 Almost one-third of the released men raped again. For the most part, the repeat rapists had a high score on the Psychopathy Checklist and had shown, prior to release, evidence of deviant sexual arousal to depictions of violence, as measured by an electronic device placed around the penis. When used to predict which released offenders would rape again, these two variables—psychopathy and deviant arousal—were correct three times out of four.
Because of results like this, the criminal justice system is showing renewed interest in the association between psychopathy, recidivism, and violence. This interest is not confined to criminals about to be released from prison. For example, several forensic psychiatric hospitals now use the Psychopathy Checklist to help make decisions about the security level to which a patient should be assigned.17
DO THEY GROW OUT OF IT?
Think about some relatives or friends you have known since childhood: the shy, inhibited girlfriend; the outgoing, gregarious brother; the fast-talking, sleazy cousin; the wild, hostile, aggressive neighbor. What were they like when they were ten years old?
Although people change, in some cases a great deal, many personality traits and behavioral patterns remain stable throughout life. For example, the boy who is afraid of his own shadow is more likely to become a timid, anxious adult than a tough and fearless fighter. This is not to say that our personalities and behaviors become tightly fixed early in life, or that growth, maturation, and experience are not powerful forces in determining what sort of adults we will become. But there is a certain degree of continuity in how we interact with our environment. With respect to criminality, for example, several researchers have shown that the childhood traits of timidity, restlessness, and aggressiveness are remarkably persistent, at least into early adulthood.18
It is not surprising, then, that the antisocial and criminal activities of adult psychopaths are continuations of behavior patterns that first showed themselves in childhood. But something interesting happens at the other end of the spectrum:19
• On average, the criminal activities of psychopaths remain at a high level until around age forty, after which they decrease sharply.
• This decrease is more dramatic for nonviolent offenses than for violent ones.
What accounts for the decrease in antisocial behavior that many psychopaths show in middle age? Several plausible explanations have been advanced: They “burn out,” mature, get tired of being in prison or in conflict with the law, develop new strategies for beating the system, find someone who understands them, restructure their view of themselves and the world, and so on.
But before concluding that aging psychopaths pose little threat to society, consider the following:
• Not all psychopaths give up crime in middle age; many continue to commit offenses well into their senior years.
• A decrease in criminality does not necessarily mean that there has been a fundamental change in personality.
These are important points. Some psychopaths continue to commit offenses, especially violent ones, until the day they die. And research suggests that many of those whose criminal activities do decrease with age still have much the same core personality traits as those described in chapter 3—that is, they remain egocentric, shallow, manipulative, and callous. The difference is that they have learned to satisfy their needs in ways that are not as grossly antisocial as before. However, this does not mean that their behavior is now moral and ethical.
Thus, a woman whose “reformed” husband now manages to stay out of trouble with the law, cheats on her less regularly than before, and expresses love for her, may well wonder if her man has “really changed at all,” particularly if she seldom knows where he is or what he is up to. If that man were a psychopath, I would very much doubt that he has changed.
AT AGE THIRTY-FIVE, a diagnosed psychopath with a lengthy record of criminal behavior and violence decided to turn her life around. She took a great many courses in prison and, following her release at age forty-two, obtained a university degree in counseling psychology. She began working with street kids and has not been charged with any offense during the past five years. Some people in the community consider her a success story. However, she has been dismissed from several jobs over the misuse of funds and making threats against her co-workers and supervisors. Because many people take the threats seriously and because they fear that publicity about her activities would embarrass them and their organizations, they have not taken formal action against her. Some of those who know her think she is an interesting woman whose criminal past was the result of unfavorable social conditions and bad luck; others think she is much the same person she always was—callous, arrogant, manipulative, egocentric—with the only discernible difference being that she now manages to remain out of contact with the law.
A PERFECT SCORE
I will end this chapter with a brief account of an offender whom two independent assessors agreed should receive the maximum possible score on the Psychopathy Checklist, a score given to fewer than one in two hundred serious offenders.
Earl was a forty-year-old serving a three-year sentence for assault. Both assessors found the interview with him interesting, even exciting, for he exuded a captivating energy that kept them on the edge of their seats. At the same time, they were shocked and repelled by what he had to say and by the casual, matter-of-fact way in which he said it. As one of the assessors put it, “I was really fascinated by this guy, but he was from another planet. He scared the shit out of me!”
Earl came from a stable working-class family, the third of four children. His problems with society began early: In kindergarten he stabbed a teacher with a fork after she had forced him to sit in his seat; at age ten he was procuring young girls (including his twelve-year-old sister) for sexual favors for his older friends; and at age thirteen he was convicted for stealing from his parents and forging their names on checks. “Yeah, I spent a few months in juvey [a juvenile detention center], but I got away with a fucking lot more than they caught me for.”
Since then, there is very little Earl hasn’t done, most of it to other people. His record is littered with charges for robbery, traffic violations, assault, rape, theft, fraud, unlawful confinement, pimping, and attempted murder. Yet, he has spent surprisingly little time in prison. In many cases the charges were dropped because the victim refused to testify, and in other cases because of lack of evidence or because Earl was able to come up with a convincing explanation for his behavior. Even when convicted, he typically managed to obtain early parole, seemingly inexplicable in view of his behavior in prison.
An entry in a psychological report tells the story: “The most salient thing about Earl is his obsession with absolute power. He values people only insofar as they bend to his will or can be coerced or manipulated into doing what he wants. He constantly sizes up his prospects for exploiting people and situations.” Other prison files describe how, in his quest for power and control, he walks a fine line between inmates and staff and is both feared and admired by both sides. He is very skilled in the use of threats, intimidation, muscle, bribery, and drugs, and he “regularly informs on other inmates in an effort to sa
ve his ass and to obtain privileges. The con code means nothing to him unless he personally gets something out of it.”
His relations with women are as shallow and predatory as the rest of his behavior. He attests to having had several hundred live-in relationships, ranging from days to weeks, and an inestimable number of sexual contacts over the years. When asked how many children he has, Earl replied, “I don’t really know. A few, I guess. I’ve been accused of being the father, but I’d say, ‘Fuck you! How do I know it’s mine?’ ” He routinely terrorized and assaulted the women in his life, sexually abused his daughter, and raped her girlfriend. His propensities for sadistic sexual behavior carry over into prison, where he is well known for his “aggressive homosexuality.”
One of the most striking features of Earl’s personality is his grandiosity; entries scattered through his files make reference to his dramatic, inflated, and pompous way of communicating. As one of my assessors wrote, “If I hadn’t been so afraid of him I would have laughed in his face at his blatant self-worship.” As Earl put it, “I’m always being told by others how great I am and how there’s nothing I can’t do—sometimes I think they’re just shitting me, but a man’s got to believe in himself, right? When I check myself out, I like what I see.”
At the time of the interview, several years ago, Earl was being considered for parole. In his application to the parole board he had this to say: “I’ve matured a lot and don’t see any future in prison life. I’ve got a lot to offer society, and I’ve worked hard analyzing my weaknesses and strengths. My goal is to be a good citizen, live modestly, and have a loving relationship with a good woman. I believe I’ve become more honest and trustworthy. My reputation is sacred to me.” The interviewer commented, “The irony of the fact that Earl was widely known as a notorious bullshitter with dozens of aliases was not lost on me.”
Without Conscience Page 11