Should Sociopathic Behavior Be Criminalized?

Sociopathy

What is sociopathy? To many in the field of psychology this is an outdated term that was replaced the Antisocial Personality Disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (1994) or by the term psychopathy, which is most commonly associated with the work of Dr. Robert Hare. However, David Lykken describes sociopathy as a relevant concept and presents a fairly solid argument that sociopathy helps explain the alarming increase in violent crime in the last 50 years.

According to Lykken (1995), sociopaths are created by ineffective parenting and inadequate socialization during childhood and adolescence. Lykken continues by stating that there are four types of sociopaths.

Common Sociopaths

These individuals are created by poor parenting and develop a lack of remorse, shame and consistently break the rules of society.

Alienated Sociopaths

These individuals, again created through poor socialization, do not develop the capacity to love or form attachments with others. This creates a person that lacks empathy and can be quite callous with victims. Within the Alienated Type are four further subtypes.

Disaffiliated Type

Individuals of this subtype develop antisocial traits and an inability to relate emotionally to others, which affects relationships on a global level.

Disempathetic Type

Although these individuals are capable of demonstrating affection and attachments to relatives, friends, or spouses, they are prone to relate to others as objects. This serves a protective function due to childhood experiences of trauma, which can be viewed as being dissociative in nature and a form of desensitization.

Hostile Type

A hostile sociopath is an angry, resentful, and aggressive person that purposefully rejects the social norms and mores of society and displays antisocial and traditional psychopathic traits as a result of their hostile beliefs.

Cheated Type

Much like the hostile type, these individuals are hostile, antisocial and reject the norms and mores of society, but for different reasons. These individuals feel rejected by society due to real or perceived inadequacies, most likely learned through experiences with an abusive parent, which in later life create specific beliefs that rules do not apply to them because they have been wronged by others.

Aggressive Sociopaths

These are dangerous individuals that enjoy hurting others and can often be described as sadistic. Dominance and control are at the heart of their psychological needs, which are fulfilled by developing and maintaining traditional psychopathic traits as a means to obtain, degrade, hurt and sometimes kill victims.

Dyssocial Sociopaths

This type was probably created by Lykken as an afterthought to explain all other individuals that did not fit within the previously described types. According to Lykken, these individuals would not normally be a sociopath or psychopath, but found themselves involved with, relating to, and loyal to other sociopathic or psychopathic individuals. This loyalty influenced their own development or belief systems and they became sociopathic due to assimilation of beliefs.

Whether or not sociopathy is a valid concept can be argued, however as a person that has researched criminal behavior for many years, it is my opinion that not all individuals that demonstrate traditional psychopathic traits are born that way. Violence in our society is becoming commonplace and poor parenting as well as abuse of all sorts is a real problem facing children today. Violence on television and video games, in addition to increasing exposure to sexuality in early life may be creating sociopaths. It is difficult to study or predict, but with the increasing violence in our society it is becoming more difficult to state that psychopathic traits are genetic in nature.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Lykken, D.T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Health Rights Advocate
Physicians for Human Rights

The Obama Administration’s Double Standard on Illegal Human Experimentation

By Nathaniel Raymond

Recent revelations that the US government conducted medical experiments in the 1940s in which Guatemalan soldiers, prisoners, and mental patients were intentionally infected with syphilis, gonorrhea, and other sexually transmitted diseases are truly horrific, and have generated widespread outrage and remorse.

Top government officials — including President Obama, Secretary of State hillary Clinton, and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius — have rightfully been quick to apologize to the President, government, and people of Guatemala for “such reprehensible research” (quote from joint statement issued by Secretary Clinton and Secretary Sebelius) which represented gross and unconscionable violations of ethical standards of human subject research.

The director of the National Institutes of Health, Francis Collins, has said the Guatemalan research “represents an appalling example from a dark chapter in the history of medicine,” and has assured that American public that “today, the regulations that govern research funded by the United States government, whether conducted domestically or internationally, would absolutely prohibit this type of study.”

But PHR is not convinced of the truth of Collins’s statement. In a June 2010 report, Experiments in Torture: Human Subject Research and Evidence of Experimentation in the ‘Enhanced’ Interrogation Program, PHR detailed and analyzed evidence indicating that the Bush administration may have conducted illegal human research and experimentation on people in CIA custody. The research, which apparently was used to insulate interrogators from potential prosecution and to standardize the use of torture, may have violated the Nuremberg Code and other standards of medical ethics.

The Obama administration, so quick to disavow unethical human subject research that occurred more than 60 years ago in Guatemala, so far has proved unwilling to investigate allegations of medical research abuses that occurred within the past decade under the previous administration.

Creation of a federal commission to investigate abuses in Guatemala is certainly a welcome step, but also serves to underline the Obama administration’s double standard for such inquiries. The US public should demand to know not only what happened in Guatemala in the 1940s, but also what medical abuses might have been committed in our name during the past decade to people in CIA custody. Until those potential crimes are investigated, the administration’s apologies have a hollow ring indeed.

Posted in General Human Rights, Torture | Tagged Alvaro Colom, bush administration, cia, guatemala, Health and Human Services, hillary clinton, human experimentation, kathleen sebelius, president obama, us government

N.Y. / Region

As Ethics Measure Emerges, So Do Questions About Its Teeth

Nathaniel Brooks for The New York Times

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo with leaders of the State Legislature and government watchdog groups on Monday in Albany, where they announced agreement on legislation to enforce ethics.

By DANNY HAKIM and THOMAS KAPLAN

Published: June 7, 2011

ALBANY — Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s office unveiled legislation to improve ethics enforcement on Tuesday, revealing details that raised questions about whether the reforms would be weaker than expected.

When Mr. Cuomo and legislative leaders announced an agreement on the ethics overhaul in a statement on Friday, they issued only a summary of the changes, refusing to release the actual bill. Their reluctance to do so kindled suspicions that the fine print contained concessions to legislative leaders.

On Tuesday, several new wrinkles became apparent with the release of the legislation. The State Senate majority leader, Dean G. Skelos, a Long Island Republican, and the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, a Manhattan Democrat, permanently enshrined their caucuses’ powers over ethics enforcement, even if their legislative majorities are ousted.

Commissioners appointed to a 14-member ethics oversight board proposed in the legislation could vote 12 to 2 in favor of an investigation of the executive branch and still lose. An 11-to-3 vote in favor of an investigation of a legislator could also fail.

Such were the oddities that emerged in the 113-page bill. State officials argued that the legislation was a significant step forward in strengthening ethics regulations and that it went to great lengths to be fair to both major parties. The bill is supported by government watchdog groups, which say it is an improvement over the Legislature’s almost nonexistent ethics enforcement and have praised the bill’s tougher disclosure rules.

“This bill takes the unprecedented step of providing independent oversight of both branches of government under one commission,” said Josh Vlasto, a spokesman for Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat. “Checks and balances, both between the branches and between the parties to avoid partisan witch hunts, are essential.”

But the bill’s full draft revealed unusual features.

Two of the three Democratic appointees the governor would make to the new ethics board could block an investigation of a statewide elected official or executive branch appointee. That means the commission could vote 12 to 2 in favor of an investigation into the executive branch and the vote could still fail. Over all, the governor would appoint six commissioners: three Democrats and three Republicans.

The legislation grants permanent powers to the existing legislative majorities. Specifically, if the narrowly divided Senate ever returned to Democratic control, Republicans would continue to appoint three of the four commissioners named by the Senate. The same goes in the Assembly, even if the Democrats, who hold a 95-to-51 edge there, ever lose their wide advantage.

The arrangement would permanently curtail the powers of the current legislative minorities with respect to ethics enforcement.

“Sounds like Dean wrote that,” Assemblyman Brian M. Kolb of Canandaigua, the leader of the Assembly Republican minority, joked, referring to Mr. Skelos, the most powerful Republican in the Legislature. “I don’t see how they could keep their appointments. I’m tongue-tied about that.”

Austin Shafran, a spokesman for Senate Democrats, who hold 30 of the 62 seats in the chamber, said Senator John L. Sampson of Brooklyn, the Democratic leader, had reservations about the deal.

“Senator Sampson supports the broad concepts behind the bill, but has concerns that permanent partisan control could detract from its independence and effectiveness,” Mr. Shafran said.

Scott Reif, a spokesman for the Senate Republicans, said, “We expect that this legislation will include safeguards to ensure that the commission operates in a bipartisan manner, and no one political party can unfairly target the other.”

Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, said, “Taking a roll of the dice with this complex and untested veto-producing structure was the price of admission needed to secure historic disclosure and first-ever external oversight.”

While the legislation requires lawmakers who are lawyers to begin disclosing their clients, it gives lawmakers time to prepare. It applies only to new clients brought in after July 2012, or new matters taken up for existing clients after July 2012.

There are also several exemptions. Chief among them, lawmakers do not have to reveal clients of their law firms who have business before the state if the lawmaker has not had direct dealings with that client. Earlier proposals had called for the disclosure of all legal clients with state business at firms that employ lawmakers.

Disclosure of lawmakers’ outside incomes appears to be robust. Under current law, legislators must select one of six income bands in which their outside earnings fall, but their selections are redacted from their ethics disclosure forms before they are released to the public.

The new ethics rules would do away with the redactions, and the draft bill replaces the six income bands with more than 100.

A version of this article appeared in print on June 8, 2011, on page A18 of the New York edition with the headline: As Ethics Measure Emerges, So Do Questions About Its Teeth.

Is it Possible to Avoid Conflict of Interest in Private Media

Ethics

Guidelines for Avoiding Conflict of Interest

“Professional electronic journalists should present the news with integrity and decency, avoiding real or perceived conflicts of interest, and respect the dignity and intelligence of the audience as well as the subjects of news.”

The RTDNA Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct specifically cites the need for avoiding conflicts of interest, whether real or perceived.The act of reporting and presenting the news often puts journalists in the position of working very closely with sources. This is where conflicts of interest can occur.Electronic journalists have an obligation to carry out their jobs—and their private lives—with no real or apparent conflicts of interest.

RTDNA strongly encourages journalists to ask the following questions when covering stories or beats that may produce real or perceived conflicts of interest:

1. Will the private actions of a journalist with a news source or newsmaker give the appearance of an unprofessional connection. Audience members may react with suspicion to revelations of friendships or romances that develop between journalists and their sources—particularly if there is ongoing coverage of a beat or story. Journalists and their managers must realize relationships that would be perfectly acceptable between other adults might not be viewed in the same way when there is also a journalist-source relationship.
2. Will the actions of a journalist’s or newsroom manager’s family members with a news source or newsmaker give the appearance of an unprofessional connection. In the same way the personal actions of journalists on their private time may come into question, the actions of their spouses and family members may do the same.How will actions of those close to a journalist be perceived by audience members.
3. Is it ever acceptable to accept gifts from a source on a story. If so, is there a monetary value limit on that gift.The FCC’s rules call for specific disclosure of payment to air material. But what if the gift comes not in connection with airing specific content. What other motivation might there be for the gift. Consider the appearances created with the audience if the gift were disclosed publicly.
4. Will you accept free admission to parks and events you are covering, even when the general public must pay for the same access. Some ethicists insist journalists covering events requiring a ticket should pay the same fee ticket buyers do, while others insist free access is part of the coverage process. Managers should discuss what sorts of events merit free access and if any do not.
5. Will you accept free travel from sources. Most journalists will accept a ride in a pickup truck to the local farmer’s pumpkin patch, but will they also accept a free ride on an airline showing off a new route. Journalists and managers should consider whether they will accept free transportation and in what form. Will the station insist on buying tickets to those forms of transportation that require passengers to do the same? How will you divulge to your audience that you have take the free transportation?
6. Will newsroom personnel be allowed to “moonlight” with interests that may be the subject of news coverage? Can on-air personalities do commercial appearances or voice over work? Many stations have arrangements that allow newsroom personnel to work elsewhere.But managers should ask what sort of conflicts of interest might be perceived from such relationships. For instance, can a sportscaster also broadcast games for a local team on its payroll. Many journalists see it as their duty to take part in public service work.Does that work present any conflicts of interest RTDNA guidelines on for on-air charitable solicitations may be of some help.
7. Does the subject matter of a story benefit the reporter, the manager, or the station Would members of the audience perceive a story is done for the monetary benefit of the station or any of its employees? If so, is there another source or approach for the story that would eliminate that potential conflict of interest?
8. Does the station have a policy on if and how employees can participate in political campaigns? Are journalists and their managers treated differently in the policy than other station employees? Journalists face the constant scrutiny of those looking for political bias in their coverage. Voting is a private act, but public participation in political events, campaign contributions, or personal messages of support on private time have no place in the life of most journalists. Stations should develop a very specific list of what political activity is never acceptable for their journalists and other employees.
9. Is there a system in place to allow journalists and managers to recuse themselves from editorial decisions about stories from which a conflict of interest—real or perceived—may arise. Do reporters and editors have a clear picture of what constitutes a conflict large enough to call for their withdrawal from a story? Managers should take time to consider inevitable conflicts that may arise and discuss how to deal with them before the conflict occurs.
10. Finally, is there a whistleblower system in the newsroom that allows anyone to point out possible conflicts of interest so that management can act on them. Is the review of all work for possible conflicts of interest a regular part of the newsroom culture?
    
    

As most journalists live and work in the community they cover, some real and perceived conflicts of interest may be inevitable. Furthermore, some stories affect everyone—including journalists—and have the possibility to yield conflicts of interest that cannot be avoided. When those cases arise, journalists and managers can ask themselves the following questions about if and how they will reveal the conflicts to the public:

1. When and how will you disclose personal connections that could result in perceptions of conflict of interest even if managers have decided the reporter is able to cover a story? What if those connections are of a very personal nature? Managers must decide what information the public deserves so that audience members can make their own sound decisions about whether conflicts of interest exist.
2. Will you disclose connections the owners of your station have with sources and subjects of stories? The corporate ownership of most television and radio stations produces conflicts of interest in the area of business and finance.Managers should consider whether to disclose ownership relationships when covering stories about companies with common or connected ownership.
3. How will the connections above be inserted in the story? In the introduction, the tag, both, or in some other way? Managers should examine the proper place to run disclaimers of ownership and other possible conflicts of interest which properly inform the audience about the connection but do not create perceptions of conflict where they do not exist.
4. Finally, if an employee commits a violation of the station’s rules regarding conflict of interest, will that violation be disclosed to the public? If so, how? Aside from the station’s personnel policies for disciplining the employee, managers should consider how the violation would be perceived if the public found out and consider whether to make that information part of follow-up or continuing coverage of the story.

RTDNF provides workshops, guidelines for specific journalistic challenges and programs on ethics and decision-making skills through a generous grant from the Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation.

In addition, RTDNA and RTDNF staff members and board members are always available to provide assistance and advice upon request.