Psychopaths and Security – an early commentary
A short clarification of definitions
The dilemma of protecting our “social systems” against what Bruce Schneier refers to as “these sorts of people” is not a new one. Let’s first get a couple of things straight; there is such a thing as psychopathy, and sociopathy. Wikipedia has this to say on the definition:
“Psychopathy ( /sa??k?p??i/[1][2]) was, until 1980, the term used for a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathycombined with strongly amoral conduct but masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal.”
The controversy over whether or not the disorder exist pertains in part to the fact that the diagnosis is somewhat outdated. The current term is “antisocial personality disorder” (APD), and includes a broader set of criteria, including, in essence, more people into the category than the diagnosis “psychopathy” did. A large number of professionals still use the psychopathy term, and use a checklist – the Hare Psychopathy Checklist – to narrow the selection caused by the diagnostic criteria of APD.
Due to the fact that most people still refer to this disorder as “psychopathy“, we’ll go with that term here too. Due to the fact that the differences between psychopaths and sociopaths is blurred at best, debunked at worst and in general disputed, we’ll go with the terms “psychopath” and “psychopathy” to deal with the both of them. The main difference that is listed and somewhat agreed upon between them seem to be that in committing crime, a psychopath will be far more interested in planning ahead than a sociopath, making psychopaths harder to find and prosecute in the aftermath. However, even this distinction is disputed between professionals. So, we’re going with “psychopath”.
Psychopaths and Crime
There’s no denying that there’s a large number of psychopaths in the jails around the world. When 75 percent of inmates in American and English prisons qualify for the diagnosis, then there surely must be a comparable number in other countries. The problem of “protecting our social systems” against “these sorts of people” is, as already stated, not a new one. The number of psychopaths currently behind bars, so to speak, is merely a confirmation of this. The problem, rather, is detection and prevention, as with all other problem groups and scenarios. The problem then encompasses the following question; Are all psychopaths bad? I.e. are all psychopaths dangerous, are all psychopaths criminals or would-be such, and are all psychopaths a danger to such “social systems” as we treasure?
On the surface, it may seem that they are. When we dig a little deeper, it seems that the answer is less clear than that. There are numerous examples of psychopaths being successful business moguls, politicians and entrepreneurs. The key is probably in the desire for “rewards” in the psychopath’s brain – a desire that is set before anything else, due to the nature of the psychopath; a very serious lack of empathy (see the definition up top).
Not all criminals are psychopaths – far from it. Neither, it stands to reason, are all psychopaths criminals. That said, with the prevalence of persons with the diagnosis in prison, it does seem that the group is one that society should protect itself against.
Protecting “Social Systems”
So how would you protect yourself from someone that has, perhaps, not yet broken any law? It’s a pillar of modern society that no one can be prosecuted, interrogated, detained, arrested or incarcerated for a crime that is yet to be committed. It’s unavoidable that some will escape the long arms of the law, be they psychopaths or not, and it’s a price we pay for maintaining the society and the freedoms that we know and cherish.
Social systems have, in fact and in part and by proxy, been built by persons that one might in hindsight say were psychopaths, looking for the reward of power or money (or in many cases, both), and the laws we know today, given the number of persons in prison with the diagnosis, have been put in place because of people who have, in perhaps as many as 75 percent of the cases been psychopaths.
Recognizing the psychopath, defining patterns and analyzing the impact of different types of the diagnosis can be one way of accomplishing the goal. Defining how a psychopath is made, or at least some of the paths to the disorder might lead to a viable treatment method, something that has yet to be developed. The predicament still prevails – we need to protect society from the burden and the cost of having psychopaths, those with criminal tendencies and intent, walking free, but we still need to maintain that all members of that society are free until it is proven that they can not be just that.
Protection from what hasn’t happened yet is not possible unless the most common cause of the impending malady is defined and an effective means of preventing it is made.
With the definitions and treatments as disputed and blurry as they are today, an effective means of protection against this specific group of personality disorders seems out of one’s grasp, from a security point of view. We’re sure there are people out there with differing opinions, however – feel free to voice them in the comments field.
About Author
