Emotion Review 5 (4):423-425 (2013)

Theoretical arguments that psychopathy eliminates individual responsibility for illegal behavior and can therefore serve as a basis for an insanity defense are largely premised on emotional characteristics of psychopathy that impede the individual’s capacity to appreciate right from wrong. We offer arguments and countervailing evidence indicating psychopaths do have the capacity to appreciate right from wrong and therefore should not be absolved of criminal responsibility.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1177/1754073913490043
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 72,607
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Mask of Sanity.Hervey Cleckley - 1976 - C.V. Mosby Co..
Norms, Conventions, and Psychopaths.Neil Levy - 2007 - Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 14 (2):pp. 163-170.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Conscientious Objections to Corporate Wrongdoing.John Solas - 2019 - Business and Society Review 124 (1):43-62.
Psychopathy: Neurohype and Its Consequences.Jarkko Jalava & Stephanie Griffiths - 2022 - In Luca Malatesti, John McMillan & Predrag Šustar (eds.), Psychopathy: Its Uses, Validity and Status. Cham: Springer. pp. 79-98.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
22 ( #518,018 of 2,533,646 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #260,225 of 2,533,646 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes