Table of ContentsIntroductionBodyConclusionIntroductionPsychopathy has been widely seen as a challenge to the law because it is difficult to formulate laws around the protection of society, respect for human agency and the holding of individuals responsible for said agency (Fox et al, 2013 p.1). The question of responsibility is a controversial topic when discussing people with psychopathy, as there are different factors in place, such as their functional abilities, that affect their decision making (Fox et al, 2013 p.2). This essay will explore the notion of diminished responsibility for criminal acts and use the work of Fox et al. to interpret various possibilities of the criminal legal system in establishing a path for appropriate legal ramification for those suffering from psychopathy, while asserting that psychopathy does not diminish responsibility. for criminal acts, however, it can affect how they should be punished. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayBodyAs defined by Fox et al, psychopaths lack a list of attributes attributed to the average person's moral behavior , such as lacking the ability to empathize with the aversive conditions of others, they do not understand the differences between conventional and moral rules, and they do not seem to learn from mistakes in the same way that an individual without psychopathy would ( Fox et al, 2013 p.1). These attributes exhibited by psychopaths are considered antisocial acts that appear to allow a psychopath to act without remorse or consideration for needs beyond their own. The problem that arises is that when a psychopath commits a crime, it is the legal system that is responsible for justifying punishment for a crime that the individual has committed (Fox et al, 2013 p.1). Generally, within the legal system, there is a propensity to consider or excuse certain behaviors when there is a contributing cause, such as cases of insanity (Fox et al, 2013 p.2), as this would prevent justice from treat these individuals as they were. unaffected functional adults, the problem of punishing psychopaths therefore arises because they do not function like unaffected individuals. However, the main concern is whether they are functional enough to deserve full punishments for the crimes they commit. As Fox et al. point out, psychopathy is one of the least desirable traits an individual can have in the eyes of the law, because psychopathy predisposes a person toward the most severely punished forms of aggression (Fox et al, 2013 p.2). Psychopathy is not considered a mental illness in terms of responsibilities and in practice. It is considered an aggravating condition in the criminal sentencing process, perhaps in part due to the high rate of recidivism or the perceived lack of remorse that a psychopath possesses for their actions (Fox et al, 2013 p .3). Psychopathy is noted as it does not impair the ability to differentiate acts as good or bad, but psychopathic individuals have an impaired ability to understand the concept of moral wrong and why an act is in fact bad (Fox et al, 2013 p.2). This type of impairment is not recognized as a factor in sentence reduction in current law (Fox et al, 2013 p.3). I argue that psychopathy makes a strong case for being classified as a factor to consider in the criminal sentencing process due to Blair et al. (2004) who conducted a study on individuals.