There is an old salesmen's and actors’ axiom which goes something like this: If one's intended audience can be convinced of the premise upon which some subsequent argument will be based, then ‘selling’ the final product – be it an automobile or a dramatic portrayal – is easy. The title chosen for this paper might convey a premise of virtual equivalence between the two terms ‘psychopathy’ and ‘dangerousness’. I do not entirely accept that premise, and hope that by the end of this paper the concept of psychopathy as I have come to know it will be elucidated and that of dangerousness broadened.

Psychopathy

First, the business of elucidation. I will not pretend to define ‘psychopath’ here. I would draw attention, however, to the probable differences between different psychiatrists’ definitions of the term, and differences between possible intellectual, impressionistic, and practical ways of viewing the disorder and its victims. There are intellectual, or at least administrative, differences between the meanings of the term in Great Britain and the United States. One can see these by perusing the work of many psychiatrists, including Craft, Cleckley, Jenkins, and others (Jenkins, 1960, 1973; Craft, 1965; Cleckley, 1976). The mental image or impression which is conjured up by the term ‘psychopath’ is of course a personal one. In my own case I must admit that it is based in large part upon conversations at my father's knee. He is a psychiatrist, not a psychopath.