How common is psychopathy in prison?

Psychopathy is relatively uncommon in the general population. Kiehl and Hoffman (2011), as well as other researchers, estimate that only about 1% of noninstitutionalized adult males in the United States meet criteria for psychopathy (p. 2). Research on female psychopaths remain limited.

Psychopathy is disproportionally prevalent among incarcerated populations, as it is largely associated with persistent antisocial deviance and criminal behavior, especially for the unsuccessful psychopath, a term used for those with psychopathic traits that end up in (or in and out of) prison. Approximately 15–25% of incarcerated males in North American prison systems meet the criteria for psychopathy.

In fact, Werner et al. (2016) note that

“[Psychopathy] is almost exclusively diagnosed in prison settings [while] research outside of criminal populations is based primarily on psychopathic traits as a proxy for a psychopathy diagnosis.”

Luckily, according to Kiehl and Hoffman’s best estimates in their 2011 article, “approximately 93% of adult male psychopaths in the United States are in prison, jail, parole, or probation” (p. 2).

Crime

Psychopathy is associated with a greater likelihood of serious and violent offending. These offenders are prone to engage in physically violent and sexually violent behavior that is instrumental in nature. Instrumental violence refers to strategic, preconceived, and calculated crimes, rather than crimes that are reactive, such as a bar fight. Common offenses result in money, power, control, or personal gratification. Traits such as limited empathy, lack of remorse, manipulation, superficial charm, and grandiosity of self may contribute to the willingness to exploit or harm others for their personal satisfaction or gain.

Kiehl and Hoffman (2011) report that one shocking study “found that more than 50% of all police officers killed in the line of duty are killed by psychopaths,” (p.14) and that within the prison samples they reviewed:

“When one looks at violent crimes as opposed to any crime landing a person in prison, psychopathy continues to be impressively predictive. Sixty-two percent of the general male prison population is made up of violent offenders, but 78% of imprisoned psychopaths are there because of a violent offense.” (Kiehl & Hoffman, 2011, p.14)

Although psychopathy is associated with serious offenses, psychopathy should not be treated synonymously with violence. Not every person with psychopathic traits is violent or is a criminal.

Recidivism (Repeated Offending)

Psychopathy is one of the strongest predictors of recidivism, particularly violent recidivism (Anderson & Kiehl, 2014). As cited in Anderson and Kiehl’s article, research teams Hemphill et al., (1998), Harris et al., (1991), and Rice and Harris (1997) followed released offenders and consistently found higher recidivism rates with individuals who scored high in psychopathy. Their collective research has found:

Within one year, high-psychopathic groups were:

3x as likely to recidivate

4x as likely to violently recidivate

Reconviction rates within three years:

~80% (high-psychopathic groups) versus ~30% (low-psychopathic groups)

Violent recidivism rates after twenty years:

90% (high-psychopathic groups) versus 40% (low-psychopathic groups)

Similarly, Kiehl and Hoffman (2011) report that psychopaths are “four to eight times more likely to violently recidivate compared to non-psychopaths,” (p.1). Many other researchers and reporters agree on these statistical numbers for recidivism within the population of psychopathic offenders. Clearly, these people are not interested in following societal rules, are not deterred by punishments, and do not learn from their mistakes while in prison.

Costs of Recidivism

As explored in the treatments section of this website, treatment for criminal psychopaths is a slippery slope and begs the question if this population should receive treatment at all. Is allocating the funds to this population worth the benefits of attempting to adequately rehabilitate them to ensure the public’s safety if and when they are released from their sentencing?

Kiehl and Hoffman’s (2011) research indicated that "psychopaths alone are responsible for approximately $460 billion per year” (p.16) in terms of criminality and recidivism the United States alone, as of 2009. Additionally,,

“Even a modest reduction in the criminal recidivism of psychopaths would significantly decrease the exploding public resources we devote to prisons, not to mention reduce the risks all of us face as potential victims of psychopaths.” (p.3)

Kiehl and Hoffman add that the cost “does not include the costs of the psychopath’s similar overrepresentation in psychiatric hospitals…[nor the] indirect costs such as treatment for victims and their nonquantifiable emotional suffering,” (p.16).

Interestingly, Kiehl and Hoffman compare the annual societal costs of criminal psychopathy with “other conditions high in the public consciousness” as follows (p.16):

Alcohol-substance abuse ~$329 billion

Obesity ~$200 billion

Smoking ~$172 billion

Schizophrenia ~$76 billion

Even though criminal psychopaths are more likely to utilize what they learn in treatment to manipulate others within and outside of the prison system, it is still worth it to attempt to decrease the costs related to them.

Sentencing Determinations

Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) is a legal determination that is given when an individual meets the legal requirements for insanity at the time that they committed an offense, although the exact requirements varies by jurisdiction. It remains important to note that an individual can have a mental disorder at the time of a crime without meeting the legal requirements for NGRI.

Psychopathy presents an interesting issue here because psychopathic individuals are not necessarily disconnected from reality or unable to understand what they are doing (which constitutes as insanity). Rather, while they remain aware of their actions and understand the potential consequences, they have severe moral and emotional deficits that affect their ability to feel the empathy, remorse, or fear that is typically associated with criminal behavior.

Kiehl and Hoffman (2011) are almost famously quoted as saying

“the central paradox of the psychopath: he is completely rational but morally insane” (p.20).

Kiehl and Hoffman explain that the law generally does not consider repeated criminal or antisocial behavior by itself to be evidence of the type of mental illness that qualifies someone for an insanity defense. The American Law Institute states:

“The terms ‘mental disease or defect’ do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct….[we] have been unable to find a single reported post-1984 federal case suggesting that psychopathy is a qualifying mental disease or defect within the federal definition of insanity.” (Kiehl & Hoffman, 2011, p. 9)

Ultimately, although psychopathy may involve significant emotional and moral impairments, it does not necessarily impair an individual's ability to understand reality, understand their actions, or recognize that their behavior is against the law.

Therefore, lucky for us all, psychopathy alone generally does not meet the requirements for legal insanity, and psychopathy does not eliminate criminal responsibility.