This paper presents a case study analysis of Drew Peterson, a former Illinois police officer convicted of murdering his third wife and suspected in the disappearance of a fourth. The paper examines the behavioral indicators of psychopathy evident in Peterson's conduct—including lack of empathy, manipulative behavior, and absence of remorse—and explores the legal and ethical challenges these traits pose during criminal sentencing. Drawing on scholarly literature regarding the Psychopathy Checklist, criminal responsibility, proportionality, and deterrence, the paper argues that criminal justice systems must adopt multidimensional approaches to sentencing psychopaths, including alternatives such as parole, to balance community protection with appropriate treatment.
This paper analyzes a case involving Drew Peterson, a veteran Illinois police officer who was arrested for murdering his third wife. Peterson is also suspected of having murdered his fourth wife, with psychopathic traits proposed as a key contributing factor. The case presents several behavioral indicators consistent with psychopathy. For example, Peterson publicly declared that his prosecution was a waste of time, expressing confidence that he would ultimately be released by the criminal justice system. Analysis of his behavior further reveals the aggressive and violent tendencies commonly associated with psychopathic individuals. Some observers regard Peterson as a textbook example of a psychopath, while others view him as a highly intelligent individual with exceptional abilities to charm and manipulate those around him. Those who characterize Peterson as a psychopath point to evidence such as his capacity to commit crimes that left no traceable evidence and his unshakeable confidence that he would remain beyond the reach of the law (Simon, n.d.).
Peterson's prosecutors believe he murdered two of his wives, both of whom disappeared without leaving evidence of his involvement. His pattern of behavior toward women is widely regarded as having contributed to these acts. For instance, investigation into the case reveals that he had a fourth wife prepared to move in with him shortly after the murder of his third wife. Multiple indicators support the hypothesis that Peterson exhibits psychopathic characteristics: he displayed aggressive and violent behavior, lacked empathy, and showed little insight into the events surrounding him. He also demonstrated manipulative behavior and an acute understanding of human nature—traits that are thought to have enabled him to act against his wives without detection. Prosecutors have found it difficult to pursue convictions in cases involving individuals diagnosed with psychopathy, as the mental state of such suspects complicates determinations of guilt or innocence. In Peterson's case, prosecutors faced a significant risk of the suspect being diverted to a healthcare setting for further observation rather than being held criminally accountable (Simon, n.d.).
Sentencing in this case required consideration of several legal and ethical issues, particularly mitigating factors related to parole and the prevention of future offending. Edens et al. (2009) recognize that sentencing psychopaths presents a significant challenge for criminal justice organizations because of the elevated risk of recurrent criminal behavior. The criminal conduct of psychopathic individuals is primarily the product of mental health conditions for which there are few efficacious treatments. According to Porter and Porter (2007), one of the central legal considerations when sentencing psychopaths—as illustrated by this case—is the question of whether the individual is competent to stand trial.
Individuals suffering from psychotic disorders frequently demonstrate incompetence to stand trial, which affects the credibility of any subsequent ruling. There is substantial evidence that psychopaths are prone to lying and exhibiting manipulative behavior, which makes it difficult for attorneys to assess the suspect's culpability. Furthermore, such individuals may not possess full awareness of their own behavior. Despite this, psychopaths generally do understand the nature of the charges against them, which means that legal factors applicable to mentally healthy individuals must also be taken into account during proceedings.
Determining the criminal responsibility of psychopathic offenders raises significant legal and ethical concerns for sentencing attorneys. Notwithstanding the dilemma, regulations supporting the conviction of psychopaths assert that such individuals maintain a firm grasp on reality. They are understood to recognize the nature of their behavior as well as its legal and moral consequences (Patrick, 2007). However, opponents of this view argue that the jury must consider whether psychopaths truly understand the purpose of legal and moral regulations, given their limited comprehension of the moral and consequential dimensions of their actions.
Comparative analysis conducted by Gendreau, Goggin, and Smith (2002) suggests that psychopaths may be considered morally insane—a condition that renders them unable to behave in accordance with established social and legal norms. This finding underscores the importance of considering the multifaceted dimensions of psychopathy when sentencing individuals like Peterson, particularly with respect to predicting future behavior and the likelihood of reoffending.
"Balancing punishment severity with community safety goals"
"Parole as treatment alternative for psychopathic offenders"
Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217–246.
Patrick, C. (2007). Handbook of psychopathy. Guilford Press.
Porter, S., & Porter, S. (2007). Psychopathy and violent crime. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Simon, G. (n.d.). Untouchable: The chilling confidence of psychopaths. Psychology Philosophy and Real Life. Retrieved July 31, 2014, from http://counsellingresource.com/features/2012/08/22/untouchable-psychopath-confidence/
You’re 56% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.