In Psychology, the knowledge of a person with disorders (whether personality, psychotic or neurotic) becomes of the utmost importance to be able to recognize, analyze and carry out a possible therapy for the person who suffers from it and to be able to help them to cope with their trouble.
Of course, Psychology not only adheres to this, also, they can be called to a Judgment to give "part" of their opinion about the person who suffers the problem. If there is something with which you could have a problem, Psychology is about a therapy for subjects with some psychopathic disorder, since when we talk about personality it becomes a real problem since these people will not attend any therapy, since it is that same, their personality.
Within Criminology (Criminis = crime, criminal or criminality. Logos = study) the person who suffers a Antisocial Personality Disorder becomes one of the topics to study, since it will be of utmost importance know if the person will be able to repeat these behaviors and what level of danger the person who suffers from a disorder of this nature has (I speak about the dangerousness in these cases due to the impulsiveness and anger that these people can show).
In turn, the expert (an expert in his field) must determine the level of danger that this maintains for society. Well, although, the State does not want someone on the streets to interrupt with the Social Control that they impose on the citizens. That is why, when a subject of such characteristics is apprehended, the prison system lets go of the entire sentence of the penalty on him..
Given this, Psychologists and Criminologists should have an agreement to be able to rule on the behaviors of a person with this disorder may have.
Well, coming here we must clarify that I will not go much into the legal field since we are not lawyers at all, but it is important to know this field.
In certain countries (Mexico, Spain, Chile, among others) they consider exempting or mitigating criminal responsibility for those who suffer from said disorder, Since, it is known that they are incapable of understanding the norms that govern people themselves (the laws), but their volitional capacities are almost intact, as well as intellectual capacities.
In other words; they know what they are doing, they know what they are doing, but they are largely unaware of its repercussions before a penal system.
This is where a discussion between jurists, psychologists and criminologists, on whether a person suffering from the disorder should be considered to serve a sentence simply taken in inpatient therapy within a psychiatric institution or if they should be sentenced like any other person. Always remembering that they are responsible for the injury to the legal right (be it robbery, fraud, homicide) but they are not criminally responsible.
From here I will try to lean on the book of Criminal Profiling of Vicente Garrido and the DSM-V trying to relate the clinical picture imposed by the Statistical Manual and Garrido's experience in the criminological field;
Well, to begin with, Garrido expresses that psychopaths have a criminal history since they were young, many times they have criminal behaviors which can be grounds for arrest, this would fall within the first of the items in the diagnostic picture of Antisocial Personality Disorder (A1).
It also explains that many times inside the prison, while serving their sentence, they engage in antisocial behavior causing fights with other prisoners and officials, an aspect described by the DSM in its items A3 and A4..
As (Garrido) also mentions about the interpersonal sphere where psychopaths have a certain egocentricity, narcissism, manipulation, which are pathological liars (criteria within DSM A2 and A7). As he explains that they are widely irresponsible in maintaining a stable job due to their impulsiveness, Like their obligations and their goals, most of the time they are far from reality (criterion A6).
Of course, Garrido also exposes that psychopaths have no feeling of remorse when they commit the crime, since they lack feelings, emotions, but what he did not bother to investigate a bit is where that lack of emotions comes from, he never explained that it could be a bad biochemical inside the body, an inherited evil, a poorly developed, among other things.
In the same way, we should not mention that much since neither neurologists, psychologists, criminologists, doctors have been able to determine the genesis of this disorder.
Without realizing it, we have mentioned the three or more criteria that the DSM asks for to diagnose an individual with psychopathy. Then we come to reason that Criminology and Psychology should go hand in hand to support each other whenever they can in areas of these kinds.
As Garrido and the Diagnostic Manual mention, psychopaths are people who have high self-esteem (reaching the level of egocentricity).
For this reason, Garrido mentions that people who have this disorder take great pains to justify their actions when they commit a homicide (or multiple homicides or even scams or robberies) that when committing their criminal behavior they will always believe themselves that they have the "right" to be able to do it, such is the case of Kuklinski "The Coldman" that he mentioned that for him the people he murdered were nothing more than inferior people and therefore they were jobs that he had to complete.
Or such is the case of Anatoli Onoprienko "The Devil of Ukraine" (mentioned in Garrido's book) that he mentioned (Anatoli) that an ordinary murderer could not remember his actions because he was afraid, he was a simple normal person, like any other. Instead, he, he could remember every murder committed, every family, every way he deprived them of life. For him, it was his right, he was superior over any other murderer, he was superior over the people he killed, so he claimed to end them to show that people are "weak".
What motivates them? It is the very question that Garrido asked himself for a long time, that is, an "ordinary" criminal (let's say him like this) his motivation is money, since it is something that he does not have and that is why he had to steal it and if the need goes away he had to kill, crossing the boundary of "normal" people and criminals.
It is something of the little that cannot be explained concretely, his motivation, for murderers like Anatoli was his "mission", for people like Kuklinski it was their job (considering that the latter was a hit man who went to the highest bidder but that he even said that money was the least important thing to him).
What is your motive then? Garrido concluded based on their experience that the only thing that motivated them was that, their impulse to deprive someone else of life was his only motive, his only wish, to be able to have the privilege of ending someone.
They love to leave a “mark” that makes the police forces, the public and everyone who may find out that they are the ones who have perpetrated the crime. Anatoli loved to burn down the houses of his victims after having killed them. Kuklinski liked to freeze his victims to make the job of performing a chronotanatodiagnosis more difficult (Cronos = Time, Thanatos = death, Diagnóstikos = distinguish). In this way, everyone would know that it was they who had committed it, no one else could take that away from them..
For Garrido, the offender always leaves something and always takes something with him at the "crime scene" (for Mexico it is the place of intervention). In these cases, psychopaths take the satisfaction of having done what they "do best" and leave a set of clues (or even the lack of them, that is also a clue) that could help the profiler, the psychiatrist to recognize of the character they might have in front of them in these cases.
Yet No Comments