Managing Psychopathy in the Society

Psychopathy A Case Study Involving an Individual Purported to be Psychopathic Summary of the case The article presents an analysis of a case involving a veteran Illinois police officer, Drew Peterson, who was arrested for murdering his third wife. Drew is suspected to have murdered his other two wives due to the influence of psychopathy. The victim of focus in the analysis shows significant symptoms that might be suggestive of psychopathy.

For example, he casted publicly that his prosecution is a waste of valuable time, as he holds that he will be eventually released by the criminal justice system. In addition, analysis of his behavior shows that he has aggressive and violent behaviors as those shown by individuals suffering from psychopathy. As such, some critics of the case hold that Peterson is a perfect example of a psychopath while other considers him as a bright individual with the abilities to charm and manipulate others in the society.

The proponents that hold that Peterson is a psychopath provides evidences such as the fact that the victim was clever to commit crimes considered perfect and had confidence that he will remain unreachable by the law (Simon, n.d.). Peterson's prosecutors believe that he murdered two of his wives who went missing without traces of evidence of his involvement. His affection towards women is highly postulated to have triggered him to murder his two wives.

For instance, analysis into the case shows that he had a fourth wife who she was to move in with him after murdering the third wife. Numerous evidences support the fact that Peterson is suspected to be a psychopath. They include the fact that he displayed aggressive and violent behaviors, lacked empathy, and insights into the events surrounding him. Similarly, Peterson shows manipulative behaviors and an extraordinary understanding of the human nature alongside his perceptive characters that predispose him to murder his wives.

The prosecutors have found it difficult to convict individuals who committed crimes and are diagnosed with psychopathy. The state of these victims makes it difficult for the determination of their innocence of guilt in relation to their committed crimes. For instance, Peterson's prosecutors are at a high risk of letting go of the suspect for further management and observation in the appropriate healthcare setup (Simon, n.d.).

Discussion Sentencing of the suspect in the above case took into consideration a number of legal and ethical issues taking into consideration the mitigating factors related to parole that could prevent future recurrence of the same behavior. Edens et al., (2009) recognizes that the sentencing of psychopaths provides a significant challenge for the criminal law organizations due to their inappropriate risk for recurrent criminal behaviors. The criminal conduct of the psychopaths is primarily the outcome of mental health conditions that have minimum efficacious treatment.

According to Porter & Porter (2007), one of the key legal issues that should be taken into consideration when sentencing psychopaths as in, the above case is the competence of the psychopaths to stand the trials. Specific situations such as individuals suffering from psychotic disorders often show incompetence stand a trial, thereby, affecting the credibility of the ruling. Significant evidence shows that psychopaths are hesitative in lying or displaying manipulative behavior. As such, it might be difficult for the attorneys in deciding the fate of the suspect psychopaths.

Moreover, evidence has that such individuals might not be aware of their behaviors. Despite the above, psychopaths understand the nature of their charges, thereby, the need for the consideration of legal factors that are applicable to individuals considered healthy. In addition, determining the criminal responsibility of the psychopaths raises significant legal and ethical concerns to the attorneys sentencing the psychopaths. Irrespective of the dilemma, regulations that support the conviction of the psychopaths hold that psychopaths have a strong touch with their reality.

They understand the nature of their behavior alongside the legal and moral consequences of their behavior (Patrick, 2007). However, the opponents hold that the jury should consider the fact that the psychopaths do not understand the point of the legal and moral regulations as they lack understanding of the moral and consequential concerns of their behaviors. Moreover, comparative analysis conducted by Gendreau, Goggin, & Smith (2002) revealed that psychopaths are morally insane. Their moral insanity makes them unable of behaving morally in accordance with the stated social and legal regulations.

Based on this, the sentencing of Peterson should consider the multifaceted dimensions of psychopathy that influence their future outcomes and recurrence of the undesired social behaviors. Similarly, legal and moral perspectives of sentencing the psychopaths should also consider the concept of proportionality to ensure inclusiveness of the penalty to the parties involved in the case. In this case, the penalty imposed on Peterson should commensurate with the magnitude of the offense. However, if the suspect presents with mental related condition, the conflict between community and proportionality becomes apparent.

Such conflicts leave the decision-making concerning the offense of the suspect to the attorneys to consider community protection and human rights of the suspect. According to Edens et al., (2009), the criminal justice systems should also take into consideration the rationale for sentencing of the psychopaths. Among the objectives such as reducing aggressiveness and violence behaviors and recurrence of the behavior are achievable with the use of strategies such as retribution, rehabilitation, specific deterrence, and general deterrence.

Significant analysis shows that a combination of these strategies aims at ensuring the protection of the community and regulation of their psychopathic symptoms. Based on this, the jury should set outer limits that act as alternatives for promoting the realization of a common goal considered beneficial to the stakeholders involved. Apart from the use of sentencing as an approach for preventing aggressive and offensive behaviors, analysis by Hare & Neumann (2008) showed that other interventions such as parole could be used to provide the required treatment to the psychopaths.

Parole acts as the best alternative for the psychopaths as it provides the opportunities for identifying the most effective interventions for treating the psychopathy. The variation in the causes of psychopathy between the two genders also plays a part in influencing the treatment method used by criminal justice systems in relation to psychopaths. Moreover, Gendreau, Goggin, & Smith (2002) provide principles that should be considered by the attorneys when sentencing the psychopaths.

Among the principles, include the fitness of the psychopath to plead, the decision of the attorneys to divert or prosecute, and sentencing of the suspect. As such, various factors such as community safety and the health of the suspect should be taken into consideration when sentencing psychopaths. Other factors identified by Hare & Neumann (2008) from their research include considering the principles of deterrence that aims at.