George B. Palermo

Loneliness and Associated Violent Antisocial Behavior: Analysis of the Case Reports of Jeffrey Dahmer and Dennis Nilsen:

It can be theorized that loneliness plays a significant role in the development and continuation of violent, antisocial attitudes and behavior. Analysis of case reports of two serial killers, Dennis Nilsen and Jeffrey Dahmer, indicate that there is evidence for such a link. In this article, a list of significant correlates of loneliness and antisocial behavior is presented. This may be useful for the assessment of possible dangerousness and in the development of prevention and intervention programs. Suggestions are made for the adequate treatment of loneliness and correlated violent, antisocial behavior. A need is recognized for more research into the psychosocial, emotional, neurobiological, cultural, and ethnic determinants of loneliness and their correlation to specific antisocial and/or criminal behavior.

Criminal Profiling: The Uniqueness of the Killer

There aremany types of bothminor andmajor crime. In some cases, offenders are rapidly identified and apprehended and the cases are easily resolved. Others are more puzzling, and their resolution confronts us with a challenge because of their complexity and, at times, repetitiveness. Criminal profiling applies particularly to the latter because of the difficulty often encountered in identifying criminals and detecting theirmotives. Crime is frequently an interpersonal event and takes place in a given ambience. Therefore, the crime scene assumes great importance for investigators, who attempt to draw from their observations the typology of both the victim and the victimizer. One could argue that criminal profiling consists of two stages, the first being general profiling and the second specific profiling.General profiling is part of the general investigative analysis of any crime. Themeticulous collection of data at the crime scene is important to arrive at the mechanics and dynamics of the crime itself. Specific profiling becomes more refined in the collection of evidentiary facts at the crime scene, with the main purpose of drawing a typology of the behavioral characteristics and psychological makeup of the perpetrator of the crime. The resolution of crimes, such as serial killings, especially the lust type; spree killings; repetitive rape; pedophilic acting out; andmass murder, benefits from this attempt to arrive at a profile of the perpetrators of such crimes. Some crimes are committed by people who are organized, methodical, and goal directed in carrying out their antisocial acts. These people generally have a higher than average IQ and their motivations are evil. They have the capacity to escape apprehension. Their antisocial acts are not only obsessive but also compulsively perpetrated, and it is because of their obsessiveness and egomania that they frequently leave their signature at the crime scene. Especially in those crimes that are repetitive in nature, the profiler uses findings of similarities in the mechanics and dynamics of the crime in an attempt to draw an identikit of the offender. Data collected concerning the victim, such as age, sex, race,marital status, place of residence, possible IQ, educational achievements, trade or profession, lifestyle, personality characteristics, sexual orientation, and friends or acquaintances, are of great importance in profiling an offender. On the basis of the evidence at the scene of a crime, the profilermay also anticipate a psychological profile of the offender. During the last quarter of the 20th century, the FBI profiled and classified, among others, sex offenders, sadistic murderers, serial killers, domestic violence

Risk Assessment Instruments in Repeat Offending The Usefulness of FOTRES

Research in the area of predicting recidivism has produced several well-validated standardized risk assessment instruments. The question arises, which instruments best serve which purposes? The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare several actuarial and dynamic risk assessment instruments as to their predictive accuracy and their usefulness in forensic practice. The sample consisted of 109 violent and sex offenders who had been released from prison in Switzerland between 1994 and 1999, and for whom the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R); Historical, Clinical, Risk Management–20; Level of Service Inventory–Revised; Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG); and the Swiss assessment instrument FOTRES were scored. Using bivariate logistic regression analyses, all instruments were able to discriminate between recidivists and nonrecidivists. The receiver operating characteristic analyses yielded area under the curve values between 0.70 (VRAG) and 0.84 (PCL-R). Furthermore, it was shown that solely examining AUC values does not suffice to determine usefulness. A comprehensive evaluation of an instrument’s usefulness for forensic practice should also look at qualitative criteria such as area of application, specificity of risk assessed, and inclusion of dynamic items among others.

Editorial: Delinquency Risks and Protective Factors

Adolescent delinquent behaviors continue to be high in the United States, and youth violence is a disturbing national problem. In 2000, 2.4 million juveniles were arrested in the United States, about 100,000 of them for serious crimes, including aggravated assault, rape, and homicide (Snyder, 2002). Already in the period between 1970 and 1986, aggravated assault by girls below age 18 had risen more than 500% (507.5%). Of all the juvenile arrests in 2004, 30% of the perpetrators were female; percentage-wise, female delinquents’ antisocial acts are rising more than those of their male counterparts, even though in 2004 almost three quarters of adolescents prosecuted in juvenile courts were males (Snyder, 2006). During the growing period of childhood–adolescence, age varied in an inverted-U pattern, with the level of crime rising quite sharply about the age of 18 and dropping rapidly afterwards to “about 7,300 criminal arrests for 100,000 population” (Stolzenberg & D’Alessio, 2008, p. 72). There are various factors in the lives of preteens and adolescents that place them at the risk of delinquency. Personal factors are early aggressive behavior, restlessness and concentration problems, substance abuse, and association with antisocial peers. Most juvenile offenses are indeed committed with others, and companions frequently facilitate illegal activities. However, as the individual matures, his or her ties with peers who engage in criminality may be weakened or severed by other transitional life events. Family, school, or community factors may also foster the risk for juvenile delinquency. A dysfunctional family, with child maltreatment, parental criminality, truancy or dropping out of school, exposure to community violence (criminogenic communities), and poverty may condition a child or adolescent to antisocial behavior. Risks may be static or dynamic, the latter being amenable to change. Many youths in spite of living in a criminogenic neighborhood do not become delinquent. This is puzzling, and many scholars have attempted to explain it on the basis of biological predisposing factors. However, it can be best understood by thoroughly examining a combination of the social context, the biological and psychological characteristics of the young person, and his or her reaction to the environment. Negative risk factors are frequently counterbalanced by positive factors. This phenomenon of remaining socially healthy in spite of negative conditions is termed resiliency, which is the individual’s capacity to cope and rise above

The Various Faces of Sadism

The behavior of the sexual sadist extends across a wide spectrum. It is a question of degree and of acting or not acting upon intense sexually sadistic fantasies. Just as many pedophiles do not become child molesters, so there are people who, even though harboring sadistic sexual fantasies, do not act upon them. At the same time, without becoming involved in sexual crime, there are others who are driven by such fantasies to engage in sadomasochistic relationships. One may wonder why pain and love may coexist between two people involved in consensual sex and more specifically, who are the people who seek pain in a sexual encounter. A sadistic personality disorder may exist even outside the sexual realm. People thus affected usually exhibit cruel, demeaning, and aggressive behavior in social and work situations, showing lack of respect and empathy, with a behavioral trend toward violence and/or a demeaning humiliating attitude toward others while obtaining a concomitant pleasure in abusing them. When persons with this personality type also derive pleasure from sexually abusing sexual partners, they can be termed sexual psychopaths or, in the case of criminal acting out, sadistic sexual offenders. The pain inflicted by a sexually sadistic individual may be physical (e.g., bondage or restraining, complete immobilization, slapping, whipping, caning, biting, sensory deprivation) or psychological (e.g., degrading and humiliating remarks). In an extreme aberration of “love,” sadomasochism, the actors assume either a sadistic role or a masochistic role. The former are usually, but not always, male and the latter women. However, women may be sadistic and men are not excluded from being masochistic. In their sadomasochistic role, both types are driven by strong sadistic or masochistic fantasies. As is well known but bears repeating, the term sadism derives from the Marquis de Sade, a licentious, libertine French aristocrat who described his sexual orgies and confused sexuality in his 18th century writings. The term masochism, instead, took its name from the Austrian writer Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, among whose writings were descriptions of passive sexual behavior in consenting sadistic relationships. Finally, the term sadomasochism, which was thought to be a sexual perversion by Sigmund Freud, was coined by the Austro-German forensic psychiatrist Richard von-Krafft Ebing, also in the 18th century. At present, some sadomasochists join together in groups or association.

Editorial: Theories in Perspective

This is the first issue of the journal in 2002. As this editorial was being written, the world had just witnessed the most heinous mass murder ever inflicted on American citizens and on American territory, and not in time of war but in time of peace. Citizens of numerous other countries were also victims, people of all races and religions. The crumbling of two skyscrapers in the heart of New York City and the concomitant killing of thousands of innocent people in other parts of the United States was an act of terrorism that shattered the sense of invulnerability felt by the average American citizen, creating a collective posttraumatic stress symptomatology. This should make one reflect that among the various types of murder, whether the sudden isolated one, the uncontrolled murder of one’s family members, or the not infrequent psychopathic sexual killing, mass murder stands out as one of the most unconscionable acts. The recent, sudden massacre in New York City was different from the mass murders that we have witnessed in the past because of the large number of victims and because of the almost unimaginable way in which it was perpetrated. It was a terrifying, programmed carnage, the utmost evil that any human being could conceive. It cannot be compared to the sudden killing perpetrated by a disturbed psychotic person or by a disgruntled employee. Those actions are also horrible, but they may produce in the onlooker feelings of compassion for the frailty of the human mind. The recent terrorist acts, instead, carried out with the intention of spreading fear and to destabilize individual nations and the family of nations, evoke anger and disbelief. Whatever the reasons for those acts, it was characteristic of them that the perpetrators were at the same time victimizers and victims. One of the differences between those terrorist acts and the mass murder that is altruistic in nature or committed as “payback” is that in the latter, the perpetrator of the crime often commits suicide immediately after or shortly after the criminal act. In the terroristic acts, instead, the killers died in the process of committing their nefarious actions. I have wondered if there is any possible psychodynamic difference between the two types of mass murders and whether in the terrorist act the individual who carries out the actions kills himself at the same time not only because he firmly believes in what he is doing and because his destructive behavior helps him to achieve his goal, but because he is subconsciously aware of his inhumane, immoral action and is overwhelmed by a deep sense of guilt. Actually, it may be that his mind accepts the vendetta that he carries out, but his psyche calls for immediate punishment for

Recidivism in Sexual Offenders

Sexual offenders, in particular, child molesters and rapists, often spend long periods in jails and prisons because of their sexual misbehavior. These offenders are viewed by the majority of the members of society as predators. Believing that once a sexual offender, always a sexual offender, people fear them and feel they are a constant menace. This is particularly true of those persons residing in neighborhoods into which these offenders are released, some of whom even panic at times. However, when released into the community, the offenders are generally strictly controlled. For example, they may be tracked by electronic monitoring, required to comply with mandatory registration, and subjected to myriad other laws, laws that have often created more problems and whose effect on recidivism has been questioned (e.g., Levenson & Zgoba, 2015). In spite of the above precautions, questions that face correctional officials include whether these offenders will recidivate and, if so, how soon? Numerous studies, including several meta-analyses, have been conducted over the past decades in an attempt to ascertain the answers to the above questions. The research also sought to find out, among other things, whether child molesters tend to recidivate sooner than rapists, whether older sexual offenders recidivate before younger ones, or vice versa, and what factors might contribute to non-recidivism. In this issue of the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology (IJOTCC), an interesting and well-documented article by Christine Petterson and colleagues examines whether scores on the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI) may predict sexual recidivism. To this effect, they conclude that the Assault and Verbal Hostility subscale of the BDHI may be such a predictor. Obviously, other factors, including the personality of the offenders, whether hostile or not, also influences their behavior and possible recidivism. Indeed, a severe degree of antisocial personality disorder or borderline behavior, coupled with unrepressed hostility, may be at the basis of their recidivistic behaviors. Among the many studies on recidivism is that of Hanson and Bussiere (1998), who reported a total recidivism rate of 13.4% (including 12.7% for child molester and 18.9% for rapist subgroups) among a group of 23,393 offenders. A study from the U.S.

A Look at Firesetting, Arson, and Pyromania

Psychiatric forensic entities that crystallize around fire are firesetting, arson, and pyromania. Even though they are distinct from one another, frequently, the terms are used interchangeably. Firesetting is a behavior that includes the intentional or accidental use of fire and often involves the negligent handling of firesetting materials. It may satisfy the curiosity of, cause amazement in, and/or express a possible underlying nonpsychotic mental condition in the firesetter. Often, juvenile impulsivity and a certain fascination with fire are at the basis of such behavior. Occasionally, drug use is present at the time of the offense. Most firesetters are not recidivistic. The importance and fascination with fire must have been present at the time of the ancient Greeks when the mythical Prometheus, driven by various motivations, stole fire from Zeus and gave it to mankind. Fire meant power, and the deed of Prometheus symbolized an act of justice: Man should possess fire because it was necessary for survival. Can it be this importance of fire that unconsciously attracts firesetters? Or is it its destructive powers or just the luminosity of the flames? The firesetter may not have criminal intent. On the contrary, arson and pyromania are criminal acts, usually willful and malicious. Arson is thought to be a general-intent crime, often committed by a single person at night, more often in cities than in suburban communities. In 2013, data covering periods from 1 to 12 months from 15,222 law enforcement agencies reported 44,840 arsons (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2014). While firesetters are generally young, curious, socially naive and superficial, inexperienced in handling firesetting materials, and often impulsive, with a tendency to resentment, arsonists, instead, are often mentally ill, socially isolated, introverted, with a past criminal history. At times, they suffer from schizophrenia or an intellectual disability. Because of their impulsive and compulsive type of behavior, they are also reported to suffer from intermittent explosive disorder or attention deficit disorder (Burton, McNiel, & Binder, 2012). Pyromania, instead, is a well-defined psychiatric condition. People who suffer from it are prone to intentional and pathological firesetting. Kraepelin called it impulsive insanity (Horley & Bowlby, 2011). Freud (1932), instead, felt it was a psychosexual disorder. It is a rare condition; only 3% to 6% of psychiatric inpatients meet the

Drug Courts as an Alternative to Probation for Highly Recidivistic Drug Offenders

As mental hospital populations declined following the deinstitutionalization of the 1980s and the quasi-failure of community mental health hospitals, partially due to patients’ non-compliance with hospital regimes, jails and prisons were almost inundated with a new breed of patients—those addicted to drugs. Because of their use of drugs, primarily illicit in nature, in concomitance with their emotional problems, these individuals frequently behaved in an antisocial manner. Thus, their incarceration was a frequent response to a deeper problem (Palermo, 2010). In 1979, in addition to the more commonly used marijuana, a high of 25 million people ages 12 and older reported having used major drugs such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), cocaine, and methamphetamine (ONDCP, 1997). In 2010, a similar number—22.6 million people in the same age range—reported the use of the above drugs (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2011). In 2008, statistics showed that 255,700 inmates out of 1,296,700 were charged with misbehaviors due to drug use (Guerino, Harrison, & Sabol, 2011). These high numbers of incarcerated drug users were one of the contributing factors to the creation of specialty drug courts. These specialty courts, as with other specialty courts (e.g., mental health courts) were facilitated by the new philosophical approach to crime of therapeutic jurisprudence (Palermo, 2013). This approach views offenders without prejudice or antagonism and helps them to overcome those addictions that may be due to basic emotional problems. By the beginning of the 21st century, the scientific community had concluded from various meta-analyses, showing fewer re-arrests for new offenses and technical violations, that drug courts are effective in reducing criminal recidivism (Marlowe, 2010). Drugs courts grew exponentially. By 2010, in America, there were 2,500 drug courts throughout the states. These programs, flexible and more offender-oriented, were reported to be successful through their use of counselling, education, drug treatment and rehabilitation, and problem solving, which were combined with the use of less punishment.

The Mentally Ill Offender Failed Reintegration and Recidivism

The presence of mentally ill offenders in society has been a problem since the closure of the mental institutions in the 1960s. Due to the erratic and often antisocial behaviors caused by the ups and downs of their illness, they often violate societal rules and end up in jail. Thus, the jail has become the repository of the mentally ill (Adler, 1986; Palermo, Gumz, & Liska, 1992). The treatment received in most jails and prisons was and too often continues to be the bare minimum. Even though some states and cities, both in the United States and abroad, organized psychiatric services that were able to care for the flood of mentally ill offenders in an adequate way (Palermo, Smith, & Liska, 1991), the majority of the deinstitutionalized mentally ill received, and continue to receive, poor treatment and a minimum of follow-up care on discharge. The latter is at times a consequence of the mentally ill offender’s deception in attempting to escape from psychiatrization (Palermo et al., 1992). Following the period of deinstitutionalization, the problem of transinstitutionalization ensued and it persists today throughout the world. Once discharged from jail or prison, these mentally ill persons often find it difficult to reintegrate into society and behave, as before, antisocially. On apprehension they are returned to the jail or prison which they have often just left. This revolving door has been present for the past 50 years: social reintegration fails and recidivism follows. In this issue, Jeffrey Abracen and colleagues present a study of mentally ill offenders in Canada, assessing the frequency of mental illness in a high-risk population and their risk for reoffending. This well-written article and the good methodology they used assure the validity of their study. The authors found a high rate of mental illness among offenders and, more importantly, found that those who carried a diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and Attention Deficit Disorder (ADA) were either the highest on a recidivistic scale or the highest in suspension, while those diagnosed with pedophilic disorders had a very low rate of recidivism. The sample was drawn from a non-psychiatric, security halfway house, which, even though a reputable institution, was insufficient to meet the mental health needs of the high-risk offender. Unfortunately, this is a problem for many released prisoners.