Psychologists Wage Legal Battle Over Psychopath Scale

A commonly used rating scale that helps criminal courts decide whether or not a person is a psychopath who is likely to commit violent acts has been questioned in research published by the American Psychological Association.  The center of discussion is a struggle between Jennifer Skeem of the University of California, Irvine and David Cooke of Glasgow Caledonian University in Scotland, and the author of the clinical test they were critiquing, Robert Hare, an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia.

Skeem and Cooke’s argue that the “Psychopathy Checklist-Revised” has spurred interest in the subject of psychopathology, but has also led to a confusion between psychopathy and its symptoms. Specifically, Skeem and Cooke argue that criminal behavior has been treated as an essential component of psychopathy as a result of the ways in which the checklist of psychopathic characteristics has been used.  They state that instead, criminal behavior should be seen as frequently accompanying psychopathy, not a component of it.

While the distinction may seem like a small one to those outside the field of forensic psychology, the checklist in question is widely used as an important part of criminal sentencing, and the way courts understand the use of the checklist could be important to helping judges determine whether or not a person is likely to behave violently in the future.

When Robert Hare, author of the “Psychopathy Checklist-Revised” saw a draft of Skeem and Cooke’s article prior to its publication, he believed that his views were being misstated and reportedly threatened a lawsuit.  Hare receives royalty payments whenever the checklist is used, but says the income is modest compared to offering expert testimony.

For three years, journals, attorneys, authors, universities, and editors have reviewed and debated the article.  It appeared this week along with a rebuttal from Dr. Hare  and his co-author C. S. Neumann.  Hare and Neumann assert that they never considered or said that criminality was an essential component of psychopathy.

Now that the psychologists are done with their legal battles, it remains to be seen whether forensic psychology will develop a new tool for courts to use in evaluating people as potentially violent and likely to re-offend.