Psychopathy Cases and Police Force - Case Study Example

Running Head: Criminology Report Psychopathy Cases and the Police Force in of the local place) A Case Report Date of Submission Introduction Psychopathic behaviour is of certain relevance to police work. W.H. Reid (1985) has emphasised that this specific personality disorder can be encountered “not only in prisons or in socially underprivileged settings, but also practically anywhere in society where antisocial traits have survival value, including business and political circles” (p. 833). The concepts antisocial personality and sociopath are also applied to characterise such individuals. Psychopathology connects DSM-IV diagnoses to the conceptual and psychotherapeutic principles in ‘individual psychology’ of Alfred Adler (Turvey, 2008). Contrary to the theoretical meta-psychological thinking of his early adviser, Sigmund Freud, the theory of Adler, with its central concept of the ‘life style’ as integral to explaining human dysfunction and function, is practical and mainly expressed in the language of everyday experience (Millon, Simonsen, Davis & Birket-Smith, 2002). Later developments in the theory of Adler are much more similar to the current cognitive, social learning, and interpersonal psychotherapies (Millon et al., 2002). Contrary to the DSM-IV model, Adlerian diagnoses and medication are naturally psychological and incorporate cognitive, psychodynamic, systems, and etiologic models (Turvey, 2008). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), aside from the DSM-IV approach, is a diagnostic instrument employed to rate an individual’s antisocial or psychopathic inclinations (Turvey, 2008). Individuals who are psychopathic victimise others mercilessly using charm, deception, aggression, or other tactics that enable them to fulfil their desires (Reid, 1985). The indications of psychopathy involve: disrespect for the law, pathological deceit, lack of compassion, superficial emotions, egocentricity, a history of preying on others, recurrent violations of social norms, and lack of a conscience (Millon et al., 2002). Items in the modified 20-item checklist for psychopathy are (Russell & Beigel, 1990, 118): (1) glibness/superficial charm; (2) grandiose sense of self worth; (3) need for stimulation/proneness to boredom; (4) pathological lying; (5) conning/manipulative; (6) lack of remorse or guilt; (7) shallow effect; (8) callous/lack of empathy; (9) parasitic lifestyle; (10) poor behavioural controls; (11) promiscuous sexual behaviour; (12) early behavioural problems; (13) lack of realistic, long-term plans. Even though there is a self-evident diagnostic relevance in Hare’s scale, the aforementioned diagnostic features are adequate for police officers to formulate an initial finding (Russell & Beigel, 1990) as to the type of individual they may be contending with. Objective of the Study Due their continuous involvement in disruptive conduct, psychopaths are quite prone to come into contact with police officers. Due to their distinctive psychological characteristics, they present particular difficulties in detection, management, and custody following detainment. Psychopaths can be extremely dangerous because they do not need a motive to victimise any person, including police officers. Hence, the objective of this study is: (1) to examine how police officers in (local name of the place where interviewees will come from), Australia identify psychopathic behaviour; (2) to determine how police officers in (local name of the place), Australia respond to psychopathic behaviour; and (3) to recommend steps in effectively dealing with psychopathic behaviour arising from ‘best practice’ literature. These objectives are formulated in accordance to my assignment, as a Research Assistant in the Australian Institute of Criminology, on psychopathy cases and the police force. Research Questions This study will attempt to answer the following key questions through interviews with police officers in (_____), Australia: (1) How do police officers in (____), Australia identify psychopathic behaviour? What are the classifications or scales used? (2) How do police officers in (____), Australia respond to psychopathic behaviour in terms of: (a) initial response to the scene of a potential psychopathy crime; (b) conducting interviews with the suspect/s; (c) conducting interviews with the victim/s; (d) investigating psychopathy crimes; (e) acquiring and safeguarding forensic evidence; and (f) collecting and disseminating intelligence on psychopathic offenders and psychopathy crimes. (3) What are the potential steps for police officers to effectively identify and respond to psychopathic behaviour? Background of the Study Recent decades have witnessed Australian governments instigate crime prevention strategies to much elaboration. Frequently, though, successes have fallen quite short of expectations (Adam & Peter, 2002). A major setback is that quite numerous attempts to work out and implement effective police approaches to crime have not deliberated on and communicated what appropriate strategies might suggest and expect to achieve (Weatherburn, 2004). Without a fundamental knowledge of, and agreement about, the general mission in which local actors are involved, sustainability of policing programmes exists. Efforts to surmount this difficulty by claiming that polices should be anchored in ‘what works?’ strategies are not useful (Weatherburn, 2004). This study explores the repercussions of the above claims for the manner police approaches to crime should be developed and implemented. It asserts that dedication to adaptable problem diagnosis and resolution in the context of a clearly communicated policing process is crucial to success. Nevertheless, for policing strategies to surface and be upheld, governments should view it as comprising of a deliberation between local and central levels. This will clearly be attained if strategies worked out by the centre are updated by, and restated, a definite sense of mission and political foresight. It is presently more than a decade since state governments of Australia, headed by Victoria and South Australia, embarked on crime prevention as a well-defined policy issue (Adam & Peter, 2002). Even the most hopeful spectator would have to admit that progress has been problematic. South Australia, whose initial 5-year plan was instigated to remarkable flourish in 1989 and which afterwards became the centre of extensive debate and disputed assessments, now sustains little more than a left-over existence in the field (Adam & Peter, 2002). Victoria, which started more modestly with its Good Neighbourhood programme in 1988, persists to progress (Homel, 2005). Nonetheless, in spite of countless modifications of strategy designation and continuing turnover of personnel and directors in its major coordinating departments, Crime Prevention Victoria (Homel, 2005), there appears modest to demonstrate for time and resources spent. The problems of Victoria are indicative of a wider problem for policing strategies in this country. Homel (2005), in a current analysis, has claimed that lack of strong leadership, poor communication and rigid top-down structure plan between local and central stakeholders has weakened Australian criminal justice administration and been a primary root of strategy disintegration. Recommendations There are a number of key indications to help police officers identify the likelihood that they are contending with psychopathic behaviour. (1) Re-examine the arrest documentation. Rap sheets of psychopaths will show various crimes. Due to their immature desire for instant pleasure, these individuals’ crimes are particularly erratic. Unlike other offenders, who have a tendency to cultivate a specialty and keep it up, psychopaths may perpetrate different offences that may range from sexual harassment to armed robbery and homicide (Millon et al., 2002). Moreover, when they perpetrate a crime they may not be reluctant to slaughter non-threatening witnesses or victims only to gratify the need to kill. (2) Police officers should cultivate the capability of identifying criminals’ manner of conversation. Accompanied with the inability of psychopaths to stick with or take part in any actions that is not self-centred (Turvey, 2008), this should forewarn police officers of the type of individual they are taking in hand. (3) Police officers should cautiously regard as a potential psychopath the offender who is capable of implicating many individuals in his/her actions, felonies, and rescue. Findings from the interviews did not implicate the psychopath alone. (4) If police officers feel an excessive fondness or disgust to a suspect who is being interrogated, that individual could be a psychopath. From experience and training, majority of professionals will cultivate a professional approach toward individuals with whom they interact with or encounter (Turvey, 2008). In general, there are individuals whom they like, individuals whom they hate, and even some toward those they are unsympathetic. Nevertheless, an individual who irritates them a lot that they are predisposed to lose their competence, or who provokes them to release him/her, is a potential psychopath (Turvey, 2008). (5) Active and well-integrated psychopaths can normally trick a lie detector or at least generate a questionable outcome. The lie detector determines specific physiological indications of guilt and nervousness, such as blood pressure, respiration, skin response, and pulse; it also referred to as the ‘emotional detective’ (Turvey, 2008, 342). The polygraphic patterns will become erratic if the test subject feels nervous or blameworthy about particular questions. Nevertheless, due to the fact that psychopaths are normally resistant to feelings of nervousness and guilt unless exposed under harsh pressure, these physiological alarms are not likely to surface (Turvey, 2008), even if they answer questions that could make an ordinary individual feel nervous or guilty. (6) Speech is usually applied to hide feelings or thoughts. This is definitely factual of psychopaths. They are absolutely able to respond to unclear questions with unclear answers and to actual questions with actual answers. In this manner, they are usually capable of convincing themselves that they are revealing the truth (Millon et al., 2002). If an officer asks, for instance, a psychopathic suspect an ambiguous question such as “Where were you during this time?” s/he may answer that s/he took a bus to Canberra. S/he easily leaves out his/her stop by in Newcastle, where s/he took part in two homicides, or in Brisbane, where he committed armed robberies. As another instance, if the officer asks him/her if s/he has ever been imprisoned before, s/he may reply “no!” because s/he can justify that the officer is referring to this specific prison. Nevertheless, s/he may have been in different other prisons and/or state penitentiary. Unless explicitly or concretely asked, s/he will assume, with appropriate rationalisation to her/himself, that s/he has told the truth. Therefore, it is easy to become disheartened when interrogating psychopaths. It may frequently be crucial to reiterate the question a number of times and devise it in a variety of ways. Only relentless and thorough questioning will draw out the needed information (Weatherburn, 2004). Still, if this process is carried out with lack of sympathy, psychopaths are likely to become inhibited and not answer further questions (Turvey, 2008). (7) It is crucial not to deceive psychopaths. They are con experts and are definitely better than most police officers. The most effective way to interrogate psychopaths is to prepare or practice thoroughly by knowing every aspect of the case. (8) It is vital to be clear and resolved with alleged psychopaths. Police officers must articulate clearly what they imply and set necessary restrictions on a subject’s behaviour (Millon et al., 2002). These strategies are crucial to successful handling of psychopaths. Even though psychopaths can be quite delightful, they also can infuriate police officers and may manipulate them into a situation where in they break the rights of the suspect (Weatherburn, 2004). Steer clear of this possibility. While it is factual that numerous offenders exhibit some indication of psychopathic behaviour, there are significant dissimilarities between psychopaths and ordinary offenders. (1) Ordinary offenders are most frequently encouraged by what their misdeed will give them, such as large sums of money from bank robbery or another lucrative undertaking. On the other hand, psychopaths usually pilfer objects for which they have no specific use. They may participate in an armed robbery for a small amount of share when they have more money than that (Turvey, 2008). (2) Ordinary offenders try to evade detection and punishment. Psychopaths may commit thoughtless felonies and leave pieces of evidence behind if they remain unnoticed for too long (Turvey, 2008). (3) Ordinary offenders will evade police officers and not offer their help in solving crimes. In contrast, psychopaths usually view their criminal operations as an amusement between themselves and the police officers and are usually discovered in this manner (Reid, 1985). For instance, Ann Rule (1986) portrayed Ted Bundy: “His cunning jousts with police were always akin to Dungeons and Dragons, and he so delighted in outwitting them, watching them scurry around to do what he considered his bidding” (p. 32). (4) Ordinary offenders normally uphold some credo of loyalty to family, friends, or even to their enemies. On the other hand, psychopaths are unattached or apathetic, with no loyalty to anyone and actually held no opinion for or against anything. Conclusion Cooperation between different communities and police officers is a vital component of a successful police response to psychopathic behaviour. As a result, this report aspires to support and help police officers in their attempts to:(1) organise communities to help in responding to psychopathic behaviour or violent crimes in general;(2) deal with the effect of psychopathic behaviour by involving communities in responding;(3) work out community crime guidelines and procedures; (4) prevent and reduce psychopathic behaviour;(5) better safeguard victims and police officers;(6) enhance community safety and well-being;(7) assemble intelligence on psychopathic crime; and (8) take part in the development and maintenance of a civil society. References Adam, G. & Peter, G. (eds) (2002). The Cambridge Handbook of Australian Criminology. UK: Cambridge University Press. Homel, P. (2005). A short history of crime prevention in Australia. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice , 355-3. Millon, T., Simonsen, E., Davis, R.D. & Birket-Smith, M. (eds). (2002). Psychopathy: Antisocial, Criminal and Violent Behaviour. New York: The Guilford Press. Reid, W. (1985). The Antisocial Personality: A Review. Hospital and Community Psychiatry , 831-837. Rule, A. (1986). The Stranger Beside Me. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Russell, H. & Beigel, A. (1990). Understanding Human Behaviour for Effective Police Work. New York: Basic Books. Turvey, B. E. (2008). Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioural Evidence Analysis. UK: Academic Press. Weatherburn, D. (2004). Law and Order in Australia: Rhetoric and Reality. Australia: Federation Press. Read More