IndexIntroductionBodyConclusionIntroductionPsychopathy has been widely noted as a challenge to the law as it is a difficult concept to formulate laws on protecting society, respecting a human action and holding the individual accountable for said agency (Fox et al, 2013 p.1). The issue of responsibility is a controversial topic when talking about individuals with psychopathy as there are several factors in place, such as their functioning abilities, that influence their decision making (Fox et al, 2013 p.2). This essay will explore the notion of diminished responsibility for criminal actions and use the work of Fox et al to interpret various possibilities for the criminal legal system in establishing a path for appropriate legal ramifications for individuals suffering from psychopathy, while advocating that psychopathy does not diminish responsibility. for criminal actions, however, this may affect how they should be punished. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original EssayBodyAs defined by Fox and colleagues, psychopaths lack a list of attributes attributed to the moral behavior of the average person, such as a lack of ability to empathize with the aversive conditions of others, do not understand the differences in conventional and moral rules, and seem do not learn from mistakes in the same way that an individual without psychopathy would (Fox et al, 2013 p.1 ). These attributes that psychopaths exhibit are considered antisocial acts that appear to equip a psychopath to act without remorse or consideration for needs beyond their own. The current problem is that when a psychopath commits a crime is that the legal system is tasked with justifying punishment for a crime committed by the individual (Fox et al, 2013 p.1). In general, 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) because it would prevent justice from treating those individuals as they are unaffected functioning adults, then the problem of punishing psychopaths arises as they do not function as unaffected individuals. However, the main concern is whether they are functional enough to deserve full punishments for the crimes they commit. As Fox and colleagues note, psychopathy is one of the least desirable traits an individual could have in the eyes of the law because psychopathy predisposes to a mental disorder. person towards the most severely punished forms of aggression (Fox et al, 2013 p.2). Psychopathy is not considered a mental illness in terms of liability relief 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 a psychopath possesses for their actions (Fox et al, 2013 p.3). Psychopathy is known to not impair the ability to differentiate acts as right or wrong, but psychopathic individuals have a reduced ability to understand the moral concept of wrongness and why an act is actually wrong (Fox et al, 2013 p.2). This type of impairment is not recognized as a sentence mitigation factor under current legislation (Fox et al, 2013 p.3). I believe that psychopathy constitutes a valid reason to be classified as a factor to be considered in the criminal sentencing process due to Blair et al. (2004) who conducted a study on incarcerated individuals with and without psychopathy, in their study found that individuals who were not psychopathic were easily able to.