How to Advance the Debate on the Criminal Responsibility of Antisocial Offenders

Should offenders with psychopathy or those exhibiting extreme forms of antisocial behaviour be considered criminally responsible? The current debate seems to have reached a stalemate. Several scholars have argued that neuropsychological data on individuals with psychopathy might be relevant for determining their criminal responsibility. However, relying on such data has not produced a consensus among legal scholars and philosophers on whether individuals with psychopathy should be excused from responsibility. We offer a diagnosis about why this debate has reached a standoff. We argue that part of the problem is that psychopathy, being a syndrome-based category, is too heterogeneous and thus offers low prospects for being integrated with neuropsychological data that might support significant conclusions about the criminal responsibility of individuals with psychopathy. Moreover, the construct of psychopathy was not originally devised to discriminate criminally accountable from unaccountable antisocial individuals. To overcome these difficulties and advance the debate, we extend a currently less discussed theoretical framework for bridging biopsychology and the law that focuses on neuropsychological constructs, domains, and processes that directly measure capacities of offenders that are relevant for criminal responsibility, without necessarily relying on mediating syndrome-based constructs. The novelty of our contribution is that the biopsychological bases of exculpation can be further developed and used for determining more fine-grained categorisations of antisocial personality types. We show how this framework provides guidelines for interdisciplinary research that can significantly advance our understanding of the preconditions for criminal responsibility and help the legal practice of ascribing or withholding it.