Juvenile psychopathy and judicial decision making: an empirical analysis of an ethical dilemma

Abstract

In the burgeoning juvenile psychopathy literature, there is a debate on whether it is appropriate to apply this construct to youths. Some have suggested that labeling children/adolescents as psychopathic might result in negative consequences, such as being recommended for more restrictive placements. However, the scant evidence is equivocal. This study provides additional insights on this issue by assessing judicial perceptions and recommendations to a hypothetical case. Results indicate that psychopathy influenced perceptions of amenability (eta = .12) and dangerousness (eta = .25), and recommendations for placement (eta = .11). More specifically, youth who were both labeled as psychopathic and ascribed psychopathic traits were viewed as less amenable to treatment and more dangerous and were more likely to be recommended for a restrictive placement than youth who were neither labeled nor described as such. The effect of psychopathy on placement recommendations, however, was not significant after controlling for perceptions of dangerous. This suggests that the influence of psychopathy on judicial restrictiveness may operate through the perceived dangerousness of the youth.

Describing, diagnosing, and naming psychopathy: how do youth psychopathy labels influence jurors?

“…Several studies reporting psychopathy labeling effects did not compare effects for the psychopathy label with those of other diagnostic labels, such as conduct disorder or psychosis (see, e.g., Chauhan et al, 2007;Jones & Cauffman, 2008;Vidal & Skeem, 2007). Thus, it is unclear whether results from these studies indicate a general labeling effect attributable to any diagnostic label or a specific labeling effect for the psychopathy label.…”

“…However, another study did find a labeling effect for the phrase ''is a psychopath'', as well as a criterion effect, for one outcome variable (Jones & Cauffman, 2008). For another study, it was unclear whether results reflected a labeling effect or a criterion effect (or both), because both criteria and labels were combined in the vignettes (Vidal & Skeem, 2007).…”

“…Unlike the Jones and Cauffman (2008) study, Vidal and Skeem (2007) manipulated psychopathic personality traits and the psychopath label as a single variable. They had JPOs (N ¼ 204) respond to an experimentally manipulated vignette that varied psychopathy descriptors and the label together.…”

“…However, the current study added a diagnostic category naming the youth as ''a psychopath.'' We added this provocative label because it appears to have contributed to the labeling effects found in three other studies (Chauhan et al, 2007;Jones & Cauffman, 2008;Vidal & Skeem, 2007). We hypothesized that a juvenile named as ''a psychopath'' would be viewed more negatively than a juvenile diagnosed as meeting criteria for psychopathy.…”

“…Consistent with results from judges and JPOs, vignette descriptions of antisocial behavioral history and psychopathic personality traits also led clinicians to anticipate future criminality. Jones and Cauffman (2008) asked 100 judges to respond to vignettes that varied presentation of psychopathic personality traits, a psychopathy label (i.e. ''John is a psychopath''), both, or neither.…”