Previous research has indicated that psychopathy, as measured by the Hare Psychopathy Checklist is related to violent behavior, recidivism, and career criminality in nonpsychotic, correctional populations. However, the present study is among only a few to investigate the relationship between psychopathy and violence in mentally disordered offenders. Participants (N = 218) were administered the PCL following admission to an inpatient forensic hospital. Significant correlations between the PCL total scores and both nonphysical and physical aggression during the first 2 months of hospitalization were observed. The PCL total scores were also significantly correlated with postdischarge arrests for offenses against persons but not for offenses against property. Both age and PCL total score were significantly related to the total number of aggressive incidents during the first 2 months of hospitalization, but only the PCL total was significantly related to frequency of seclusion or restraint during this period. Results suggest that psychopathy may serve as a risk factor for mentally disordered offenders for certain kinds of aggression.

The current study examines the use of physical control (seclusion and restraint) in a sample of patients hospitalized in a public mental hospital during 1989. A total of 243 patient records involving physical control were examined; of these, 124 had been civilly committed and the remaining 119 were forensic (Incompetent to Stand Trial or Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity). Some 870 physical control events occurred in the sample, a rate that is intermediate when compared with other facilities described in the literature. Seclusion was employed most often (46% of events), with the combination of seclusion and restraint used in 32% of events and the remaining 22% of physical control events being restraint. Seclusion tended to be used more often with civilly committed patients, with restraint more frequently employed with forensic patients. Forensic patients differed from civil subjects in their greater frequency of threats, agitation, and verbal hostility. However, civil patients were more frequently aggressive toward others and destructive of property. These findings are discussed in the context of previous evidence also describing forensic patients as being perceived as more dangerous, but behaving in a fashion no more physically aggressive than civil patients.

No abstract