Investigating Characteristics of the Nonrecidivating Psychopathic Offender

• Date: 01 December 2016
• Author: Stephen C. P. Wong,Grant N. Burt,Mark E. Olver
• Published date: 01 December 2016
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854816661215
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2016, Vol. 43, No. 12, Decenber 2016, 1741 –1760.

DOI: 10.1177/0093854816661215

© 2016 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1741

INVESTIGATING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE

NONRECIDIVATING PSYCHOPATHIC

OFFENDER

GRANT N. BURT

Youth Forensic Psychiatric Services

MARK E. OLVER

University of Saskatchewan

STEPHEN C. P. WONG

Swinburne University of Technology

University of Nottingham

University of Saskatchewan

Psychopathic offenders are at higher risk to violently reoffend than nonpsychopathic offenders; however, about one in four

psychopathic offenders are not reconvicted for a violent offense even over extended follow-ups. The characteristics of non-

recidivating psychopathic offenders (NRPs) remain underexamined. In a sample of 123 offenders with a minimum Hare

Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R) score of 25, community follow-up of 5 years, and 4 months in a violence reduction

program, 65 men receiving a violent conviction within 5 years (recidivating psychopathic offenders [RPs]) were compared

with 58 who had not (NRPs). Comparatively, NRPs were older at release, had better community support, and were rated

lower violence risk. NRPs also had significantly lower PCL-R Factor 2 scores, but higher Factor 1 scores. Post hoc analyses

revealed prominent NRP characteristics included exploitative personality traits and a predilection for instrumentally violent

crimes. Findings are discussed in terms of their implications for the risk assessment and treatment of psychopathic offenders.

Keywords: nonrecidivating psychopathic offender; PCL-R; treatment; recidivism; psychopathy

Since the mid-1990s, there has been a host of research demonstrating that psychopathic

offenders are high volume violent offenders with lengthy criminal careers. Indeed,

offenders scoring highly on the tool most commonly used to assess psychopathy, the Hare

Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003) and its derivatives, commit

more crimes than the average criminal offender (Hare & McPherson, 1984; Wong, 1984);

have higher rates of violent recidivism (Leistico, Salekin, DeCoster, & Rogers, 2008); have

higher rates of institutional misconduct, including violence (Guy, Edens, Anthony, &

Douglas, 2005); and are more likely to fail on conditional release (Hart, Kropp, & Hare,

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The views, opinions, and assumptions expressed in this paper are those of the authors

and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the British Columbia Ministry of Children and

Family Development, the University of Saskatchewan, the University of Nottingham, or Swinburne University

of Technology. The authors thank Brenda Maire, Abigail Abada (nee Mallillin), and Karen Parhar for their

assistance with data collection. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mark E. Olver,

Department of Psychology, University of Saskatchewan, 9 Campus Drive, Arts Building Room 154, Saskatoon,

Saskatchewan S7N 5A5, Canada; e-mail: mark.olver@usask.ca.

661215CJBXXX10.1177/0093854816661215CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIORBurt et al. / NONRECIDIVATING PSYCHOPATHIC OFFENDER

research-article2016

1742 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

1988). Not only did the PCL-R usher in a new “benchmark” for risk assessment (particu-

larly for violent recidivism), the construct of psychopathy also introduced a theoretical

framework to assist in understanding the habitual offender; that is, individuals who possess

psychopathic personality traits (e.g., lack of empathy, grandiosity, manipulative nature) are

more likely to possess the respective behavioral characteristics (e.g., impulsivity, need for

stimulation, parasitic lifestyle) and to engage in a more active criminal lifestyle.

A well-replicated oblique two-factor solution to the PCL-R has demonstrated that the

personality and behavioral aspects of psychopathy are distinct yet related. PCL-R factor

scores can be grouped into four domains, with Factor 1 being disaggregated into Interpersonal

(e.g., superficiality, grandiosity) and Affective (e.g., callous/lack of empathy, shallow

affect) facets, and Factor 2, Lifestyle (e.g., impulsivity, irresponsibility) and Antisocial

(e.g., poor behavioral controls, criminal versatility) facets. Psychometric research provides

particularly strong support for the predictive accuracy of Factor 2 in general (Leistico et al.,

2008), and the incremental validity of the Antisocial facet in particular, for a range of recidi-

vism outcomes (Walters, Knight, Grann, & Dahle, 2008). While Factor 1 and the

Interpersonal and Affective facets have tended to be less consistent predictors of recidivism,

research has demonstrated Factor 1, particularly the Affective facet, to be important respon-

sivity indicators. Specifically, high Affective facet scores have been linked to increased

treatment noncompletion (Olver & Wong, 2011) and decreased therapeutic progress (Olver,

Lewis, & Wong, 2013).

While the PCL-R has contributed major inroads for forensic assessment, there are impor-

tant caveats associated with its use. For instance, some researchers have found evidence for

inconsistent field reliability of the PCL scales (as well as other structured forensic tools)

within forensic evaluation contexts, particularly Factor 1 items (Edens, Boccaccini, &

Johnson, 2010; Murrie et al., 2009). Cox, Clark, Edens, Smith, and Magyar (2013) also

found that mock jurors were more likely to support a death verdict when they perceived the

individual to have pronounced interpersonal and affective characteristics of psychopathy. In

short, notwithstanding the major inroads contributed by the psychopathy construct and the

PCL-R to improving risk assessment and clinical practice, such research highlights the need

for professional discretion and care when employing the tool in forensic evaluation con-

texts. This is particularly salient given the connotations of the label “psychopath” and the

heterogeneity that exists even among the group of individuals with this classification.

PSYCHOPATHY AND NONRECIDIVISM

Despite being a group broadly classified as high risk, empirically and theoretically it is

also apparent that not every psychopathic offender is destined to violently reoffend.

Although the majority of psychopaths do recidivate within a matter of months or a few

years after release, a consistent minority of psychopaths (20%-30%) do not reoffend (at

least as verified by official criminal records), even after long periods of follow-up time

(Hare, 1996; Hart et al., 1988; Quinsey, Rice, & Harris, 1995; Serin & Amos, 1995; Wintrup,

Coles, Hart, & Webster, 1994). Consistently, research demonstrates that about one in four

psychopathic offenders released from custody do not receive any further violent convic-

tions regardless of the length of follow up inherent to the research design. Although the

construct of psychopathy and the PCL-R provide a good foundation for understanding a

psychopath’s tendency to use violence, they speak little to identifying features of those