“I love Halloween — the one time everyone wears a mask… not just me. People think it’s fun pretending you’re a monster. Me, I spend my life pretending I’m not. Brother, friend, boyfriend — all part of my costume collection. Some people might call me a fraud. I prefer to think of myself as a master of disguise.”
This article identifies and discusses on the ways in which biological influences to psychopathy are thematically portrayed in the eighth season of Dexter to describe Dexter’s psychopathy, particularly focusing on fatalism and the inevitability of succumbing to one’s “biological self.” This paper, utilizing traditional content analysis, focuses on seven qualitative themes surrounding “biological fatalism” and psychopathy in this final season of Dexter. As lay theories of psychopathy are thought to originate from the media’s conceptualization of the disorder, such thematic portrayals serve to potential affect lay understandings of psychopathy and correspondingly, how the disorder is treated and perceived in the criminal justice process as a modern psychopathy-related “CSI Effect.” The conclusion focuses on the messages that this final season of Dexter sends to the lay public about the biological influences to psychopathy and how this may create implications for the criminal justice system.
Keywords: Dexter, Psychopathy, Neuroscience, Criminal justice.
Introduction
In recent years, that has been an increased societal interest in psychopathy (Kiehl & Hoffman, 2011). Psychopathy is defined as a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with antisocial conduct but masked by an ability to appear outwardly ‘normal’ (Hare, 2003). Psychopathy has most often associated with individuals perceived to be dangerous and violent, but also the belief that these individuals have the ability to freely choose to commit immoral, depraved behaviors (Keesler, 2013; Kiehl & Hoffman, 2011; Thi, 2016). The idea that individuals with psychopathy should have the ability to regulate and control their actions often leads to views that they are unable to be successfully treated and affect their behavior through rehabilitation (Boccaccini, Murrie, Clark, & Cornell, 2008; Murrie, Boccaccini, Johnson, & Janke, 2008).
Perceptions of psychopathy generally have been thought to affect several aspects of the criminal justice system, particularly related to how lay people with no psychiatric or psychological background on the disorder, including jurors, judges, and attorneys, believe the disorder affects punishment contexts in court (Keesler, 2013). The dangerousness and violence associated with psychopathy have been known to affect juror perceptions and support for greater punishment for offenders with the disorder, particularly related to the want for incapacitation in order to protect public safety (Lyon & Ogloff, 2000; Marshall, Lilienfeld, Mayberg, & Clark, 2017; Thi, 2016). Indeed, many studies have found that perceptions of “evilness” and remorselessness of offenders, when described to have psychopathy or such traits associated with psychopathy, predict more punitive sentencing outcomes for lay populations, including mock jurors, capital jurors, and judges (e.g. Costanzo & Peterson, 1994; Cox, Clark, Edens, Smith, & Magyar, 2013; Cox, Edens, Rulseh, & Clark, 2016; Sundby, 1997). The results of these studies are important, as evidence surrounding psychopathy has been increasingly presented and considered in criminal court contexts in the last 10 years (DeMatteo et al., 2014), as well as increasingly used to inform other criminal justice contexts related to punishment (DeMatteo et al., 2014; Viljoen, McLachlan, & Vincent, 2010; Walsh & Walsh, 2006). Unsurprisingly, psychopathy has also been found to increase punitive outcomes for offenders when such evidence is utilized in Sexually Violent Predator hearings, civil commitment decisions related to mental health, and parole hearings, particularly related to perceptions of future violence or dangerousness and less potential for successful treatment (Petrila & Skeem, 2003).
Although psychopathy and how perceptions of the disorder may affect criminal justice has been a popular research topic for many years, in the last two decades particularly, there has been a burgeoning area of scientific research on the brain abnormalities of psychopaths, and correspondingly, how such functional and structural brain impairments affect the behavior, character traits, and outcomes for individuals with psychopathy (Umbach, Berryessa, & Raine, 2015). This recent literature suggests that the quintessential moral deficits, lack of empathy, callousness, dishonesty and lack of impulse control associated with psychopathy are directly influenced by neural impairments to several brain areas (Kiehl & Hoffman, 2011), including the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala (e.g. Mobbs, Lau, Jones, & Frith, 2007; Umbach et al., 2015). Along with this scientific research, there has also been a growing body of literature, particularly experimental studies, on the presentation of neuroscience evidence on psychopathy and how lay understandings of psychopathy as a biologically influenced disorder may affect punishment contexts. For example, Saks, Schweitzer, Aharoni, and Kiehl (2014) found neuroscience evidence on psychopathy reduced judgments of responsibility and death sentences in a mock capital context. Aspinwall, Brown, and Tabery (2012) found that neuroscience evidence on psychopathy significantly mitigated judges’ views on sentencing and their negative perceptions on psychopathy as an “aggravating” factor. Although Remmel, Glenn, and Cox (2018) did not find that neuroscience evidence significantly affected how psychopathy was perceived in relation to punishment by a lay sample, this study particularly demonstrates how such neuroscience evidence on psychopathy might be used in the future in court.
Given this background, it appears that lay understandings of psychopathy have the potential to affect criminal justice contexts, particularly related to punishment. Inter-estingly, lay theories of psychopathy are not thought to originate from the criminal justice system or the research community directly,
but instead the media’s conceptualization of the disorder and its relationship to crime