Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T17:08:57.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 8 - Legal and Ethical Issues in ASPD and Psychopathy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2022

Richard Howard  and
Conor Duggan
Richard Howard
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Conor Duggan
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Get access

Summary

Here, we explore the thorny issue of the involuntary detention of those with ASPD (and those with psychopathic traits) for treatment. We use, as a frame, the recent history in the United Kingdom of attitudes using the changes in the legal designation of ‘psychopathic disorder’ whereby such individuals might be so detained. As there is undeniable evidence that those with the legal designation of psychopathic disorder are at higher risk of re-offending after discharge, psychiatrists were reluctant to admit them for treatment. This filtered down to the community so that those with a PD label were denied treatment. Faced with this dilemma, the government introduced the DSPD programme, whose rationale was underpinned by a defensible notion of both risk and treatability. We believe that, given the wide margin of error associated with both risk estimation and the efficacy of treatment (especially if the latter is imposed rather than consented to), this was unlikely to have a good outcome, and so it proved. We propose an alternative whereby sentencing and treatment of those with PD if convicted are uncoupled, thereby preserving a cordon sanitaire between the custodial and therapeutic realms.

Keywords

psychopathic disorderinvoluntary detentionDSPDTBS
Type
Chapter
Information
Antisocial Personality
Theory, Research, Treatment
 , pp. 125 - 142
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brandais, R. D.. Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928) (dissenting), 1928.Google Scholar
Francis, R.. The Michael Stone Inquiry – A Reflection. Journal of Mental Health Law 2007; 41–49.Google Scholar
Lord Donaldson, M.R in Re Adult: Refusal of medical treatment (1992) 4 All E.R. 649.Google Scholar
Pickersgill, M.. How personality became treatable: The mutual constitution of clinical knowledge and mental health law. Social Studies of Science 2012; 43: 30–53.Google Scholar
Blackburn, R., Logan, C., Donnelly, J., Renwick, S.. Personality disorders, psychopathy and other mental disorders: Co-morbidity among patients at English and Scottish high-security hospitals. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 2003; 14: 111–137.Google Scholar
Grounds, A.. Detention of ‘psychopathic disorder’ patients in special hospitals: Critical issues. British Journal of Psychiatry 1987; 151: 474–478.Google Scholar
Reiss, D., Grubin, D., Meux, C.. Institutional performance of male ‘psychopaths’ in a high-security hospital. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 1999; 10: 290–299.Google Scholar
Steels, M., Roney, G., Larkin, E., Croudace, T., Jones, P., Duggan, C.. Discharged from special hospitals with restrictions: Psychopathic disorder and mental disorder compared. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 1998; 8: 39–55.Google Scholar
Jamieson, L., Taylor, P. J.. A reconviction study of special (high security) hospital patients. The British Journal of Criminology 2004; 44: 783–802.Google Scholar
Taylor, P. J.. Special supplement. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 1992; 2: iii–v.Google Scholar
Hoggett, B.. Mental Health Law, 3rd ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1990.Google Scholar
Peay, J.. Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983: Squandering an opportunity? Journal of Mental Health Law 2000; 5–15.Google Scholar
Department of Health. Report of the Expert Committee: Review of the Mental Health Act 1983. London: Department of Health, 1999.Google Scholar
Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 Proposals for Consultation. Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Health by Command of Her Majesty, November 1999.Google Scholar
de Ruiter, C., Trestman, R. L.. Prevalence and treatment of personality disorders in Dutch forensic mental health services. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 2007; 35: 92–97.Google Scholar
de Ruiter, C., Hildebrand, M.. The dual nature of forensic psychiatric practice: Risk assessment and management under the Dutch TBS-order. In: van Koppen, P. J., Penrod, S. D., eds., Adversarial vs. Inquisitorial Justice: Psychological Perspectives on Criminal Justice Systems. New York: Plenum Press, 2003; 91–106.Google Scholar
Timmerman, I. G. H., Emmelkamp, P. M. G.. The prevalence and comorbidity of Axis I and Axis II disorders in a group of forensic patients. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 2001; 45: 36–149.Google Scholar
Moffitt, T. E.. Adolescent-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behaviour: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review 1993; 100: 674–701.Google Scholar
Department of Health; Home Office. Managing Dangerous People with Severe Personality Disorder. London: Home Office, 1999.Google Scholar
2001 Labour Party General Election Manifesto 2001. Ambitions for Britain. 2001. http://labourmanifesto.com/2001/2001-labour-manifesto.shtml (accessed 17 December 2020).Google Scholar
Duggan, C.. Dangerous and severe personality disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry 2011; 198: 431–433.Google Scholar
Coid, J., Cordess, C.. Compulsory admission of dangerous psychopaths. British Medical Journal 1992; 304: 1582.Google Scholar
National Institute for Mental Health in England (NIMHE). Personality Disorder: No Longer a Diagnosis of Exclusion. Policy Implementation Guidance for the Development of Services for People with Personality Disorder. 2003. http://personalitydisorder.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/PD-No-longer-a-diagnosis-of-exclusion.pdf (accessed 17 December 2020).Google Scholar
National Institute for Mental Health in England. Breaking the Cycle of Rejection: The Personality Disorder Capabilities Framework. Leeds: NIMHE, 2003. http://personalitydisorder.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/personalitydisorders-capabilities-framework.pdf (accessed 17 December 2020).Google Scholar
Tyrer, P., Barrett, B., Byford, S., et al. Evaluation of the Assessment Procedure at Two Pilot Sites in the DSPD Programme (IMPALOX Study). London: Home Office, 2007.Google Scholar
Joseph, N., Benefield, N.. A joint offender personality disorder pathway strategy: An outline summary. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 2012; 22: 210–217.Google Scholar
Edens, J. F., Petrila, J., Kelley, S. E.. Legal and ethical issues in the assessment and treatment of psychopathy. In: Patrick, C. J., ed., Handbook of Psychopathy, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press, 2018; 732–751.Google Scholar
Edens, J. F., Truong, T. N.. Psychopathy evidence in legal proceedings. In: Marques, P., Paulino, M., Alho, L., eds., Psychopathy and Criminal Behavior: Current Trends and Challenges. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press, 2022, 241–272.Google Scholar
Monahan, J.. Violent Behavior: An Assessment of Clinical Techniques. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981.Google Scholar
Yang, M., Wong, S., Coid, J. W.. The efficacy of violence prediction: A meta-analytic comparison of nine risk prediction tools. Psychological Bulletin 2010; 136: 740–767.Google Scholar
Duggan, C., Howard, R. C.. The ‘functional link’ between personality disorder and violence. In: McMurran, M., Howard, R. C., eds., Personality, Personality Disorder and Violence. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2009; 19–37.Google Scholar
Howard, R. C., Duggan, C.. Personality disorder and offending. In: Towl, G. J., Crighton, D. A., eds., Forensic Psychology, 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2021.Google Scholar
Cooke, D. J., Michie, C.. Limitations of diagnostic precision and predictive utility in the individual case: A challenge for forensic practice. Law and Human Behavior 2009; 32: 28–45.Google Scholar
Coid, J. W., Yang, M., Ullrich, S., Zhang, T., Sizmur, S., Farrington, D., Rogers, R.. Most items in structured risk assessment instruments do not predict violence. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology 2011; 22: 3–21.Google Scholar
Mullen, P. E.. Dangerous and severe personality disorder and in need of treatment. British Journal of Psychiatry 2007; 190, S49: S3–S7. doi:10.1192/bjp.190.5.s3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faigman, D. L., Monahan, J., Slobogin, C.. Group to individual (G2i) inference in scientific expert testimony. University of Chicago Law Review 2014; 81 : 417–480.Google Scholar
Applebaum, P. S.. The new preventive detention: Psychiatry’s problematic responsibility for the control of violence. American Journal of Psychiatry 1988; 145: 779–785.Google Scholar
Trebilcock, J., Weaver, T.. Study of the Legal Status of Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder (DSPD) Patients and Prisoners, and the Impact of DSPD Status on Parole Board and Mental Health Review Tribunal Decision-Making. 2011. Project Report, Ministry of Justice, London.Google Scholar
Baker, E., Crichton, J.. Ex parte A: Psychopathy, treatability and the law. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 1995; 6: 101–109.Google Scholar
R v. Canons Park Mental Health Review Tribunal ex parte A [1994] 2 All ER 659 CA (Law Report).Google Scholar
Revision of the Mental Health Act 2007. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/12/contents (accessed 17 December 2020).Google Scholar
Lewis, G., Appleby, L.. Personality disorder: The patients psychiatrists dislike. British Journal of Psychiatry 1988; 153: 44–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duggan, C.. Managing personality disorder in the community. In: Basant, P., Treasaden, I., eds., Forensic Psychiatry. London: Taylor & Francis, 2014.Google Scholar
Dershowitz, A. M.. On ‘preventive detention’. New York Review of Books 1969; 12, 5.Google Scholar
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, HM Chief Inspector of Probation. The indeterminate sentence for public protection: A thematic review. HM Inspectorate of Prisons, September 2008. www.bl.uk/collection-items/indeterminate-sentence-for-public-protection-a-thematic-review# (accessed 17 December 2020).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×