ABSTRACT
The belief that those assessed as ‘criminal psychopaths’ are not able to be treated is
pervasive among the general public, as well as those involved in the criminal justice
system, implying that the most viable ‘solution’ is indeterminate and high-security
incarceration or capital punishment (Hare, 1996). Psychopathic individuals typically
are characterised as exhibiting significant qualitative differences from other
offenders. For example, psychopathic offenders are identified as having long-term
criminal careers, beginning at an early age and their offending is often extensive and
versatile (Hare, 2003). They also tend to violate conditional releases much sooner
than non-psychopathic offenders; commit reactive violence; exhibit clear external
goals as part of their overall offence patterns; derive gratification from inflicting pain
on others (Porter & Porter, 2007) and commit a disproportionate amount of serious
crime (Cooke, Forth, & Hare, 1998; Hare, 1998; Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1991; Hart
& Hare, 1997; Serin & Amos, 1995). However, it is important to point out that many
offenders classified as at high risk of serious reoffending have similar career and
offence characteristics captured by Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) Factor 2
TREATMENT PROGRAMMES FOR HIGH RISK OFFENDERS
items without necessarily having the interpersonal and affective deficits captured by
Factor 1 items (Skeem, Polaschek, Patrick, & Lilienfeld, 2011; Wilson, 2004). Furthermore, there are practical implications of being identified as possessing
psychopathic traits in forensic settings (e.g. parole, treatment eligibility, sentence
length; Hare, 2003). It is important, therefore, to move beyond diagnostic criteria
(and unhelpful stereotypes) when the issue of most concern is risk of reoffending.
Instead, the focus should be on specific interpersonal and affective differences that
relate to deviant social and criminal behaviour of the psychopathic offender (Skeem,
Polaschek, & Manchak, 2009).
