Psychopathic costs: a monetization study of the fiscal toll of psychopathy features among institutionalized delinquents
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-07-2017-0031 |
| Date | 09 May 2018 |
| Published date | 09 May 2018 |
| Pages | 112-124 |
| Author | Matt DeLisi,Dennis E. Reidy,Mark H. Heirigs,Jennifer J. Tostlebe,Michael G. Vaughn |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Criminal psychology,Sociology,Sociology of crime & law,Deviant behaviour,Public policy & environmental management,Policing,Criminal justice |
Psychopathic costs: a monetization study
of the fiscal toll of psychopathy features
among institutionalized delinquents
Matt DeLisi, Dennis E. Reidy, Mark H. Heirigs, Jennifer J. Tostlebe and Michael G. Vaughn
Abstract
Purpose –That psychopathy imposes substantial societal costs and economic burden is axiomatic, but
monetization studies have overlooked cost estimates of the disorder. The paper aims to discuss these issues.
Design/methodology/approach –Drawing on a near census of institutionalized delinquents from Missouri,
the current study devised new crime cost measures for self-reported offending.
Findings –Youth imposed $30 million in total costs annually in large part due to extensive involvement in
robbery, theft, and assault. The most criminally active youth imposed costs in excess of $700 million.
Psychopathy features were differentially correlated with crime costs. APSD-SR callous-unemotional traits,
mPPI-SF Blame Externalization, mPPI-SF Machiavellian Egocentricity, and mPPI-SF Social Potency were
significantly associated with between four and five crime costs. Psychopathic traits associated withruthless
self-interest, callousness, and expectations to control and dominate others manifest in diverse ways including
serious violence and repeated property crime. Other features such as mPPI-SF Impulsive Nonconformity,
mPPI-SF Stress Immunity, mPPI-SF Coldheartedness, mPPI-SF Carefree Nonplanfulness, mPPI-SF
Fearlessness, APSD-SR Impulsivity, and APSD-SR Narcissism had limited associations with crime costs.
Originality/value –To the authors’knowledge, this is the first monetization study to quantify the effects of
assorted psychopathy features on crime costs.
Keywords Antisocial behaviour, Psychopathy, Criminal career, Costs of crime, Delinquents,
Monetization study, Psychopathic personality
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In terms of the interpersonal, behavioral, lifestyle, affective, and personality deficits associated
with the disorder, psychopathy exacts a horrible human toll and fiscal burden on society.
These burdens are experienced across contexts among households with psychopathic family
members, in schools where there are psychopathic students, in the workplace where there are
psychopathic employees and supervisors, and most certainly, in juvenile and criminal justice
settings where psychopathic offenders are detained, supervised, and treated (Boduszek,
Debowska, Dhingra and DeLisi, 2016; Boduszek, Dhingra and Debowska, 2016; Coid and
Yang, 2011; DeLisi, 2016a; Hare, 1993; Kiehl, 2014; Lykken, 2000). It is the latter area where the
burden of psychopathy is greatest in terms of the disproportionate amount of crime that
psychopaths perpetrate. As Kiehl and Sinnott-Armstrong (2013, p. 1, italics added) advised,
“Experts estimate that psychopaths comprise less than 1% of the population but commit as
much as 30% to 40% of the violent crime in the United States. Given that the cost of crime in the
United States is estimated to be $2.3 trillion per year and violent crime constitutes the vast
proportion of those costs, psychopathy is likely the most expensive mental health disorder
known to man.”Despite occasional statements about the fiscal burden of psychopathic
offenders, such as by Kiehl and Sinnott-Armstrong, researchers have heretofore largely ignored
psychopathy in monetization studies of crime.
Received 2 July 2017
Revised 6 October 2017
Accepted 6 October 2017
Declaration: Authors DeLisi, Reidy,
Heirigs, Tostlebe, and Vaughn did
not receive grant funds, speaker
honoraria, or stock/royalty income
for this study and declare no
conflicts of interest.
Matt DeLisi is a Professor at
Iowa State University, Ames,
Iowa, USA.
Dennis E. Reidy is a Behavioral
Scientist at the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention,
Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Mark H. Heirigs is a Graduate
Assistant at Iowa State
University, Ames, Iowa, USA.
Jennifer J. Tostlebe is a
Graduate Research Assistant
at the University of Colorado,
Boulder, Colorado, USA.
Michael G. Vaughn is a
Professor at Saint Louis
University, St Louis, MO, USA.
PAGE112
j
JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY
j
VOL. 8 NO. 2 2018, pp. 112-124, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2009-3829 DOI 10.1108/JCP-07-2017-0031
To continue reading
Request your trial