South American Research Journal, 4(1), 27-34

https://www.sa-rj.net/index.php/sarj/article/view/48

ISSN 2806-5638

trastornos de la personalidad, debido a la complejidad

en el manejo de su imputabilidad en el sistema legal. Se

emplearon los criterios del modelo PRISMA para la

revisión y selección de estudios pertinentes a este

objetivo en bases de datos académicas. Los resultados

muestran que existe evidencia de alteraciones a nivel

neuroanatómico que pueden afectar la capacidad

volitiva de las personas con TPA, y que resultan en un

deficiente control de impulsos. Sin embargo, algunos

autores coinciden en que, a pesar de estas alteraciones,

los individuos con este diagnóstico tienen plena

conciencia de sus actos y sus consecuencias al momento

de cometer un delito, por lo que este diagnóstico por sí

mismo no constituiría necesariamente una razón para

atenuar su imputabilidad. Se resalta la importancia de

continuar desarrollando la teoría y métodos de

evaluación para establecer un tratamiento legal

adecuado.

Antisocial Personality Disorder and

Legal Responsibility: A Systematic

Review of the Evidence

Trastorno de la Personalidad Antisocial y

Responsabilidad Legal: Una Revisión

Sistematizada de la Evidencia

Mauricio Esteban Reyes Guaranda

y Abrahán Felipe

Orellana Moscoso

Universidad of Cuenca. Av. 12 de Abril s/n y Av. Loja. Cuenca,

Ecuador.

Correspondencia:

mauricio.reyes@ucuenca.edu.ec

abrahan.orellana@ucuenca.edu.ec

Palabras clave: imputabilidad, trastorno antisocial

de la personalidad, psicopatía, responsabilidad legal.

Recepción: 17 de mayo de 2024 - Aceptación: 24 de julio de 2024 –

Publicación: 20 de septiembre de 2024.

INTRODUCTION

ABSTRACT

One point of intersection between Psychology and

Law is the analysis of criminal behavior. In this context,

one of the most relevant debates is the relationship

between criminality and the presence of psychological

disorders (Jácome et al., 2023). Although there is a

connection between personality and delinquency

Human-Hendricks & Roman, 2014; Aguirre et al.,

013), this relationship is complex and cannot be

considered in a unidimensional way (Manunza &

Giampaolo, 2018).

This link between mind and law directly influences

the concept of imputability, which is the foundation of

legal responsibility. Imputability implies the attribution

of an act and its consequences to a person, which

justifies that person being held accountable to society

for his or her actions, whether positive or negative.

Without imputability, true responsibility cannot exist

This article presents a systematic review on the

legal responsibility of individuals diagnosed with

Antisocial Personality Disorder from 2018 to 2024. In

recent years, a debate has been maintained on the legal

treatment of psychiatric disorders, including personality

disorders, due to the complexity in managing their

imputability in the legal system. The PRISMA model

criteria were used to review and select studies relevant

to this objective in academic databases. The results

show that there is evidence of alterations at the

neuroanatomical level that may affect the volitional

capacity of people with APD, resulting in poor impulse

control. However, some authors agree that, despite these

alterations, individuals with this diagnosis are fully

aware of their actions and their consequences when

committing a crime, so this diagnosis would not

necessarily constitute a reason for mitigation of their

imputability. This article highlights the importance of

continuing to develop theory and evaluation methods to

establish adequate legal treatment.

(

Ronco, 2014).

In this context, the literature agrees on the fact that

the concept of imputability is based on three main axes.

On the one hand, typicality is considered, a concept that

implies that every action or omission contemplated in

the legal field must be contained in some criminal type.

To determine this, an objective typicality analysis

process must be carried out, where it is understood that

the acts committed are directly classified in a legal

document, and subjective typicality, which has to do

with those acts that, although they are not specifically

classified in a legal type, there are antecedents of similar

situations in which the jurisprudence has ruled on a

certain legal action (Mata, 2020).

Keywords: imputability, antisocial personality

disorder, psychopathy, legal responsibility.

RESUMEN

Este artículo presenta una revisión sistematizada

sobre la responsabilidad legal de individuos

diagnosticados con Trastorno de Personalidad

Antisocial en el período 2018 - 2024. En los últimos

años se ha mantenido un debate sobre el tratamiento

legal de trastornos psiquiátricos, incluyendo los

The second axis on which the concept of

imputability is based is unlawfulness, within which it

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13821381

South American Research Journal, 4(1), 27-34

https://www.sa-rj.net/index.php/sarj/article/view/48

ISSN 2806-5638

must be ruled out that the act in question does not have

any cause of justification, which determines that said

action or omission is contemplated in the Law (Arias et

al., 2022). Finally, culpability must be considered, that

is, that the individual had prior knowledge of the act

committed and its consequences (Mata, 2020).

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders DSMV-TR (American Psychiatric

Association [APA], 2019) defines personality disorders

as “an enduring pattern of internal experience and

behavior that departs markedly from the expectations of

the subject's culture” (p. 733).

Taking into account the above, for an individual to

be considered accountable, it is necessary that he or she

has sufficient cognitive abilities to have the capacity for

self-determination and freedom to decide. Therefore,

when a possible crime is committed, it is necessary to

determine that the subject has acted in accordance with

his or her free will, and that said actions have been

previously reasoned and that there has been a conscious

decision-making process regarding the fact and its

consequences.

Another concept associated with imputability is

criminal conduct, understood as those behaviors that

deliberately transgress the norms and all forms of social

control that monitor compliance with coexistence

guidelines dictated by a legal framework (Chirino &

Giménez, 2018). This type of behavior can be

considered an expression of the particular

psychopathology of the perpetrator of the crime, in the

event of a psychic disorder. These aspects of the

individual's personality must be subject to examination,

because it could be determined that his condition of

mental pathology implies an alteration of his cognitive

and volitional capacities, and, therefore, that he is not

imputable.

Therefore, the concept of imputability, defined as

the determination that a person is subject to a penalty

established by law (Casanueva, 2014), is closely related

to psychological factors, since it implies that the subject

has a set of minimum psychic faculties to be aware of

his actions, and that there is no alteration of his will at

the time of "deciding" to commit them.

However, individuals with a personality disorder

have symptomatic characteristics that may predispose

them to the manifestation of criminal behavior, such as

impulsiveness, emotional coldness, and lack of empathy

Additionally, the International Classification of

Diseases ICD-11 (World Health Organization [WHO],

2019) stipulates that personality disorders involve an

alteration of some aspects of the self, such as identity,

self-esteem, self-perception and self-direction, in

addition to interpersonal dysfunctions, such as the

ability to develop and maintain close relationships,

understand the points of view of others, and resolve

interpersonal conflicts.

To assess personality disorders, it is proposed, first

of all, to assess the presence of this type of alterations,

and to identify whether these are of late onset, since in

that case they would not be considered a personality

disorder. On the other hand, it is necessary to stipulate

the severity of the alterations, since, if they do not meet

a minimum requirement of severity, they could not be

considered a disorder, but a personality difficulty.

Finally, the need to assess the quality of the disorder is

highlighted, which is established through the

description of a domain of traits, that is, those

dimensions of the personality that stand out most in the

individual (Figueroa, 2018).

As for Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD), its

main characteristic is a persistent pattern of indifference

and violation of the rights of others, which begins in

childhood or early adolescence and continues into

adulthood. This pattern has been commonly referred to

as psychopathy, sociopathy, or antisocial personality

disorder (López, 2013).

For an individual to receive this diagnosis, certain

considerations must be met: they must be at least 18

years old; they must have had a history of behavioral

disturbances before turning 15, and these transgressions

must not be associated with age-appropriate norms.

Other characteristics of this disorder include aggression

toward other people or animals, destruction of property,

deception or theft, or violation of rules characterized by

impulsivity and lack of remorse, according to the DSM-

5TR diagnostic manual (APA, 2019).

(

Chirino & Giménez, 2018). Personality disorders are

stable phenomena over time, occurring from

adolescence or early adulthood of a subject, being

inflexible and manifesting in all spheres of life, causing

clinically significant discomfort in the functionality of

people.

Despite being a known disorder with an established

assessment and diagnosis, the etiology of Antisocial

¹The American Psychiatric Society in the third edition of the

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)

changed the term “psychopath” to “Antisocial Personality

Disorder” and in the fourth edition to “Antisocial Personality

Disorder”. However, several authors establish differences

between psychopathy (personality traits, heritable, deviant

behaviors) and Antisocial Personality Disorder (criminal

behaviors, antisocial). While there are other studies that

statistically identify

a positive correlation between

psychopathic traits with ASPD (DeLisi, 2023). Many non-

psychopathic criminals may have a diagnosis of ASPD (Aluja,

1991), in addition, the literature shows that approximately

only one third of people with ASPD are diagnosed with

psychopathy (Salvador et al., 2015). Therefore, the present

review includes research that addresses the legal liability of

psychopathic traits in addition to those related to ASPD.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13821381

South American Research Journal, 4(1), 27-34

https://www.sa-rj.net/index.php/sarj/article/view/48

ISSN 2806-5638

Personality Disorder is not fully understood. Evidence

indicates the existence of a biological component, that

is, heritability in its onset (Shin-Yee, 2023). In addition,

genetic factors (MAOA gene) and neurobiological

factors (abnormalities in the orbitofrontal and anterior

temporal cortex) are known to be associated with the

development of this disorder (Frazzetto et al, 2007).

In addition to the existence of genetic indicators, it

is considered to be a multifactorial construct, in which

the environment in which the individual develops

intervenes. Within this category, it is necessary to

consider that adverse childhood experiences,

understood as various forms of abuse, neglect, and other

forms of childhood adversity, are related to mental

health alterations throughout development, including

psychiatric and personality disorders (Alvela et al.,

ruled out when diagnosing ASPD, because antisocial

behaviors can be better explained by the influence of

substance use.

Another disorder that shares certain characteristics

with ASPD is Borderline Personality Disorder, which is

even categorized as a personality disorder, and is similar

in the impulsive and manipulative nature of its behavior.

However, those diagnosed with this disorder use this

type of behavior as a means to obtain validation and

affection, while in ASPD individuals seek to obtain

pleasure in transgressing social norms (Fisher & Hany,

2019).

In the legal field, in the past only

psychopathologies such as schizophrenia (and other

psychosis spectrum disorders), intellectual disability,

and certain mood disorders were considered as

categories subject to non-imputability, without taking

into account personality disorders alone. In more recent

years, the idea of mental illness has spread, under the

consideration that personality disorders constitute a

sufficient cause to consider a significant alteration of the

capacity of an individual to understand and discern the

consequences of their actions, provided that these

alterations show a degree of consistency, relevance,

severity or intensity to affect said faculties,

differentiating this symptomatology from other types of

anomalies or emotional and passionate states (Oranges,

2018).

Currently, it is widely believed that a mere

diagnosis of ASPD and psychopathy is not sufficient to

exempt one from criminal liability. These

psychopathologies also require that they generate one of

the following psychological effects: a) a lack of

understanding of the illegality of the act and b) a lack of

action in accordance with that understanding (González,

1997). Since these disorders do not affect the

“understanding of illegality”, they can only cause the

second psychological effect: a lack of action in

accordance with that understanding.

This effect, closely related to the will, can vary in

intensity, and depending on the degree of affectation of

the will, it can give rise to a complete, incomplete or

mitigating exonerating circumstance (Roxin, 1981).

According to the “theory of responsibility for the

result”, a subject is considered responsible for the act

committed due to the occurrence of the result (Jiménez,

1976).

019).

People diagnosed with ASPD have not only been

exposed to a greater number of adverse experiences

during their childhood, but the accumulation of these

experiences contributes to the emergence of more

serious, violent and chronic manifestations of criminal

behavior (Cáseres-Serrano & López-Robledo, 2018).

The influence of family economic status on

children's antisocial behavior has been shown to be a

low-relevance predictor, in contrast to the significant

influence of negative family characteristics such as

neglect, hostility, indifference, and physical abuse. In

environments characterized by these family dynamics,

children tend to internalize a view of the world as cold,

inhospitable, and punitive, which shapes their

perception of life as a struggle for survival and control

of the environment. In addition, the lack of

opportunities to learn socially appropriate behaviors

adds to the challenges faced by this population (Sue et

al., 2010).

On the other hand, another factor that seems to be

involved in the etiology of ASPD is the presence of

psychopathology in childhood, such as Oppositional

Defiant Disorder and Conduct Disorder. Several authors

consider that the symptomatology of these disorders

acts as a prodromal factor of the diagnostic

characteristics of ASPD (DeLisi et al., 2019).

It is important to clarify that the diagnostic

characteristics associated with Antisocial Personality

Disorder may share similarities with other disorders,

which is why the importance of an adequate differential

diagnosis is highlighted. It is possible to establish this

differentiation with Narcissistic Personality Disorder,

which shares the characteristic of manifestations of

explosive and ruthless behavior, but differs from ASPD

in the fact that it does not present aggression and deceit

In relation to similar research carried out recently,

Orenes (2020) stands out, who carried out a systematic

review of the bibliographic evidence on the application

of psychiatric expert evidence as a tool for the diagnosis

of different psychiatric pathologies and its consequent

application of the legal concept of imputability. This

research revealed that, in the case of Borderline

Personality Disorder, in many cases the imputability of

the defendants was completely annulled, since it was

(

Serra, 2016).

Likewise, Substance Use Disorder is similar in the

impulsivity and irresponsibility component (Santos-de

Pascual et al., 2020). In this case, consumption must be

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13821381

South American Research Journal, 4(1), 27-34

https://www.sa-rj.net/index.php/sarj/article/view/48

ISSN 2806-5638

considered that this disorder constitutes an alteration of

cognition and will, in addition to the perception of the

reality of the subjects. On the other hand, no reduction

of imputability was applied in the case of Antisocial

Personality Disorder, since it was considered that these

individuals are fully aware of reality and act of their

own free will.

On the other hand, Manunza & Giampaolo (2018)

examined the legal consequences applied to a sample of

offenders associated with the crime of harassment,

among which were people with pathological personality

traits. This study showed that the presence of these traits

is associated with repetitive and persistent harassment

behaviors. However, it is concluded that it is the

interaction of several psychopathological aspects

among which are personality alterations, which

determine a specific behavior, and that these must be

present in a high degree of severity for it to be referred

to as mental insanity, which can reduce or exclude an

individual's competence to commit a crime.

Disorder” were used, separated by the Boolean

operators AND and OR to find these terms in the titles,

abstracts or keywords of the studies, prior to the

screening process based on the inclusion and exclusion

criteria.

The academic databases in which this review

was carried out were Web of Science, Scopus, Medline,

Pubmed, Social Science Database, Psychology

Database, Science Direct and Dialnet.

The search criteria used in this review were the

following:

- Inclusion criteria: Scientific articles published in

journals with a peer review process; Scientific articles

written in English and Spanish; Scientific articles

located in the databases described previously;

Scientific articles that match the search terms;

Scientific articles published in the period 2018 - 2024.

- Exclusion criteria: Books; Undergraduate, Master's or

PhD theses; Dissertations; Book chapters; Incomplete

texts.

In short, the relationship between TPA,

accountability and legal responsibility is a matter of

debate. Due to the high prevalence of this disorder in the

prison population, considering it as a cause of non-

accountability would complicate the prosecution and

prevention of crime. Some positions see TPA as an

attenuating factor of mental responsibility, while others

maintain that people with this disorder are aware of their

actions and have full connection with reality when

committing crimes. The dangerousness and moral

disorder associated with TPA could justify not reducing

accountability in these cases. (Borbón, 2021).

The screening and selection process of the

scientific articles was carried out using the Rayyan tool

(Ouzzani et al., 2016), which allows the organization of

documents extracted from the different academic

databases selected, and the review of the relevance of

the studies and their compliance with the inclusion

criteria. Subsequently, a process of reading, analysis

and synthesis of the selected studies was carried out in

order to obtain information concerning the objective of

the research.

In this sense, the present article aims to carry out a

systematized review of the legal responsibility

attributed to subjects diagnosed with Antisocial

Personality Disorder in the period 2018 - 2024.

Addressing this problem from the framework of Legal

Psychology allows us to obtain an updated overview of

what the theory establishes about the characteristics of

this disorder, its relationship with criminal behavior and

the legal responsibility of those who meet its diagnostic

characteristics.

RESULTS

This study aimed to examine the recent

literature regarding the legal treatment of Antisocial

Personality Disorder. Below are the general results of

the articles selected after the screening process, and the

categories of results based on the objective of the

review.

Table 1. Scientific articles selected by year of publication.

Year of

publication

Number of

studies

Code

METHODOLOGY

2018

A3, A5

This document constitutes a Systematized

Review of the Scientific Evidence of the Narrative

Synthesis type regarding the Imputability of Antisocial

Personality Disorder in the period 2018 - 2024. This

review is based on the PRISMA criteria (Preferred

Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-

Analyses) (Urrutia & Bonfill, 2010), standardized for

the adequate presentation of scientific information in

this type of documents.

019

A1, A2, A4, A7, A8, A9

020

021

A6, A10

A11

2023

Source: Own elaboration

A12, A13

After carrying out the search for studies in the

selected academic databases, 78 scientific articles were

located, of which 4 duplicate documents were

eliminated, and 61 that did not meet the inclusion

The search terms used for the literature review

were selected to locate studies published in English and

Spanish. The terms “Imputability” and “Imputability

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13821381

South American Research Journal, 4(1), 27-34

https://www.sa-rj.net/index.php/sarj/article/view/48

ISSN 2806-5638

criteria, obtaining a total of 13 articles. The selected

studies were published between 2018 and 2023,

reflecting an updated state of the art regarding the

debate on the legal responsibility of subjects diagnosed

with TPA and the need to further research on this topic.

The selected scientific articles present relevant

advances in topics such as the contribution of

neuroscience to the study of individuals diagnosed with

APD, jurisprudence regarding its treatment, and the

contribution of psychology from a theoretical point of

view and as a basis for legal decision-making. Table 2

presents a summary of the theoretical contributions

found in the selected documents, categorized according

to the areas described above.

who enjoy committing illegal acts. This last

characteristic is key to determining the imputability of

an individual, as it indicates a cognitive capacity

preserved during the illegal conduct (Castillo, 2019).

The psychological approach allows a more nuanced

assessment of legal responsibility, differentiating

between different criminal profiles.

Studies of brain abnormalities do not provide

conclusive evidence of

a medically significant

impairment that invalidates cognitive abilities in people

diagnosed with APD (Borbón, 2019). Some argue that

considering the neurobiological alterations of APD as a

cause of non-imputability is reductionist. A correlation

is required between antisocial behavior and an inability

to rationalize conduct, manifested in various contexts of

the subject's life. Thus, a subject cannot be considered

non-imputable if he has a "degree of awareness" of his

actions and their illegality (Jurako & Malatesti, 2018).

Functional models have been proposed to explain

the signs and symptoms of these disorders. The

neuromoral theory of antisocial behavior proposes that

dysfunction of neural networks underlying moral

behavior is a fundamental cause of this phenomenon.

This dysfunction results in emotional, thought, and

behavioral alterations, facilitating the development of

antisocial behavior (Raine, 2019).

Table 2. Scientific articles selected by theoretical categories.

Category

Number of studies

Code

Contributions

from

A1, A2, A5, A10

neurosciences

Review of

jurisprudence

A3, A8, A13

Contributions of

psychology to

legal treatment

A4, A6, A7, A9, A11,

A12

However, for these factors to be considered in the

imputability, brain impairment must be demonstrated.

In addition, although the theory suggests a volitional

alteration due to the involvement of specific areas of the

brain, it must be specifically considered and assessed

whether the subject had full knowledge of his actions

and their consequences. This approach poses a

significant challenge in legal practice, given that the

precise assessment of brain impairment and its impact

on the moral behavior of the individual is not a simple

task (Raine, 2019).

Furthermore, psychopathy can hardly be

considered a unitary phenomenon, with a single cause

and homogeneous manifestation, according to its

multidimensional structure. For example, reduced

sensitivity to emotional stimuli and aversion to threat

signals in psychopaths explains their lack of intrinsic

motivation towards the well-being of others and their

lack of empathy. These individuals also show a deficit

in the regulation of decision-making, possibly caused by

atypical connectivity in cortical areas (Decety, 2020).

Similarly, some approaches consider psychopathy

as an adaptive response to adverse environments.

Empirical evidence is not sufficient to consider

psychopathic learning abnormalities as manifestations

of disabilities due to internal or neuroanatomical

impairments. For this reason, a social intervention

approach is proposed to mitigate the negative effects of

psychopathy, suggesting that societies could benefit

from adjusting the physical and social environments

Source: Own elaboration

DISCUSSION

Understanding the unlawful nature of an act and

the ability to act on that understanding at the time of the

crime are crucial to determining legal liability.

Personality disorders, including ASPD, and

psychopathy vary in intensity and severity from one

individual to another. Likewise, the diagnostic criteria

and symptoms of ASPD and psychopathy do not

guarantee a total loss of the ability to understand the

unlawful nature of actions. Therefore, the diagnosis of

these psychopathologies does not automatically imply a

reduction in sentence; an analysis of the circumstances

of the crime is required to determine the extent of the

impairment in the ability to understand the unlawfulness

of the conduct (Borbón, 2019).

Currently, there is little consensus on whether APD

and psychopathy should be considered as grounds for

non-imputability. Legal decisions must be based on the

personal variables of each case and on the conceptual

difference in the capacity for guilt between law and

neuroscience (Harbottle, 2019). This lack of consensus

reflects the complexity of integrating neuroscientific

knowledge into the legal field, where imputability must

be assessed in a multidimensional manner.

In this sense, psychology has a direct impact on

criminal law by providing useful technical knowledge

to distinguish between common criminals and those

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13821381

South American Research Journal, 4(1), 27-34

https://www.sa-rj.net/index.php/sarj/article/view/48

ISSN 2806-5638

that exacerbate these traits (Jurjako et al., 2021). This

adaptive approach offers a broader perspective to

understand and manage these disorders in legal

contexts.

clinical categories, the nature of these disorders is

heterogeneous, and offers little prospect for integration

with neuropsychological data to yield definitive

conclusions on criminal responsibility. Second, these

categories were not created to differentiate between

criminally responsible antisocial individuals (Jurjako et

al., 2023).

Ultimately, to the extent that psychopathy or ASPD

does not impair an individual’s volitional capacities,

i.e., their ability to control their behavior, they will not

be excused from culpability for criminal acts.

Psychopathy is also not generally accompanied by

delusions of the kind that would deprive the affected

person of the ability to understand the nature of their act.

Whether it would prevent them from “knowing that the

act or omission was morally wrong” is a considerably

more controversial question, one that continues to

divide opinions among psychologists, lawyers, and

philosophers. Finally, not only can psychopathy and

ASPD be rejected as exonerating or mitigating

conditions, they may even serve as aggravating factors

in sentencing (Malatesi et al., 2022).

On the other hand, studies on gender differences

and forms of manifestation of ASPD and psychopathy

show that ASPD is less prevalent in women compared

to men. Likewise, women with high scores in

psychopathy tend to commit mostly impulsive crimes,

and have a higher incidence of personality disorders,

especially histrionic and borderline. On the other hand,

psychopathic traits in women with zero, partial or total

responsibility are similar, and psychopathy has been

seen to be more associated with personality disorders

than with psychotic or schizophrenia spectrum disorders

(

Carabellese et al., 2019).

In relation to incidence, in the United States,

approximately one-third of the male prison population

sentenced for homicide has been classified as

psychopathic. Linked to this, the positive correlation

found between psychopathy scores and the ASPD (ρ =

.72) is interesting, in terms of criterion validity.

Furthermore, psychopathy is frequently cited during

capital sentencing proceedings (DeLisi, 2023). This

high prevalence and the use of psychopathy in

sentencing proceedings reflect the importance of this

disorder in the penal system.

An analysis of sentences carried out by Álvarez et

al. (2019) shows that the majority of defendants do not

present impairments in their intellectual and volitional

capacities. Thus, subjects with TPA without

comorbidity with other pathologies are not considered

unaccountable. Those to whom exemptions or

alternative measures were applied suffered from

disorders in addition to TPA. This shows the need to

consider comorbidity and other contextual factors when

evaluating imputability.

In any case, TPA and psychopathy are especially

prevalent in the prison population, which is an

indication of non-causality to reduce their legal

responsibility (Fernández, 2020). Expert evidence is a

judicial method to adequately assess the acts committed

and the possible reduction of imputability based on the

diagnosis of psychiatric disorders. Since TPA is

frequently related to criminal behavior and is

characterized by an inability to adapt to norms and

display violent behavior, the possibility of reducing

imputability is limited.

CONCLUSIONS

The determination of legal responsibility depends

crucially on the ability to understand the wrongfulness

of one's actions and act accordingly. Although the

presentation of ASPD and psychopathy can vary in

intensity and severity, their diagnosis does not

automatically imply an inability to understand the

wrongfulness of one's actions. Studies of brain

abnormalities in individuals with ASPD do not provide

conclusive evidence of significant impairment that

negates their cognitive abilities. Therefore, it is

necessary to evaluate the specific circumstances of the

crime to determine how these conditions affect the

mental faculties of the accused.

The debate over whether ASPD and psychopathy

should be considered grounds for non-imputability

remains unresolved, highlighting the complexity of

integrating

neuroscientific

and

psychological

knowledge in the legal field, where imputability

requires a multifaceted assessment. Legal provisions

and sentencing analyses tend to recognize the legal

responsibility of defendants with ASPD due to the

clinical particularities of the disorder and the absence of

Legal provisions, such as the Orlando reform, tend

to recognize the chargeability of defendants with APD

due to their tendency to commit violent acts without an

admission of guilt (Oranges, 2018). This underlines the

need for an individualized assessment of each case,

considering both clinical and legal aspects.

recognition of

guilt.

Ultimately,

these

psychopathologies do not significantly affect volitional

and cognitive capacities, they do not absolve individuals

of guilt, and in some cases, they may aggravate the

sentence.

The debate on the imputability of psychopathy and

ASPD seems to have reached a stalemate. First, as

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13821381

South American Research Journal, 4(1), 27-34

https://www.sa-rj.net/index.php/sarj/article/view/48

ISSN 2806-5638

DeLisi, M., Peters, D., Hochstetler, A., Butler, H., y Vaughn, M.

REFERENCES

(

2023). Psychopathy among condemned capital

murderers. Forensic Sci, (68), 558–567,

https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15188

Aguirre, D., Cataño, J., Cañón, S., Marín, F., Rodríguez, J., Rosero,

L., ..., & Vélez. J. (2013). Riesgo suicida y factores

asociados en adolescentes de tres colegios de la ciudad de

Manizales, Colombia. Revista de la Facultad de Medicina,

3(3), 419-429.

https://doi.org/10.15446/revfacmed.v63n3.44205

Aluja, A. (1991). Evaluación clínica y psicométrica del Trastorno

Fernández, M. O. (2020). Fundamento médico legal de la

imputabilidad en los distintos trastornos psiquiátricos.

Importancia de la prueba pericial psiquiátrica. Gaceta

internacional de ciencias forenses, (37), 46-55.

https://www.uv.es/gicf/4A3_Orenes_GICF_37.pdf

Figueroa, G. (2018). Una nueva propuesta de clasificación de los

trastornos de personalidad: la clasificación internacional

de enfermedades CIE-11. Revista chilena de neuro-

Antisocial de la Personalidad. Revista de Psiquiatría,

8(2), 59-70.

https://repositori.udl.cat/server/api/core/bitstreams/d3075

0a-a13e-42c8-8327-1fc7e23c2bed/content

psiquiatría,

56(4),

260-268.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/s0717-92272018000400260

Fisher, K. & Hany, M. (2019). Antisocial Personality Disorder.

StatPeals.

Frazzetto, G., Di Lorenzo, G., Carola, V., Proietti, L., Sokolowska,

E., Siracusano, A., Gross, C., y Troisi, A. (2007). Early

Trauma and Increased Risk for Physical Agression during

Aldulthood: The Moderating Role of MAOA Genotype.

Álvarez, P., Díaz, Ó., y Sanz, C. (2021). Trastorno de la

Personalidad Antisocial y Delincuencia: análisis de

sentencias entre 2009-2019. Edupsykhé. Revista de

Psicología

Educación,

18(1),

1-24.

https://journals.ucjc.edu/EDU/article/view/4329

Alvela, S., Mateos, M., Osorio, A., Abadín, M., Blasco, A., Sanz,

B., & De la Gándara, J. (2019). Relación entre el trauma

infantil y los trastornos mentales en la edad adulta.

Plos

one,

2(5)

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000486

Psicosomàtica 46-56.

https://raco.cat/index.php/PsicosomPsiquiatr/article/view/

91353/484648

Psiquiatría,

(11),

González, A. (1997). Código Penal. Doctrina y Jurisprudencia.

Trivium.

Harbottle, F. (2019). Psicopatía y capacidad de culpabilidad: un

acercamiento al debate actual. Medicina Legal de Costa

American Psychiatric Association (2019). Diagnostic and Statistical

Manual of Mental Disorders Text Revision (DSM-5-TR).

American Psychiatric Association Publishing.

Arias, C., López, L., y Proaño, D. (2022). Las causas de justificación

de la antijuricidad penal como antecedente de aplicación

de los eximentes de responsabilidad civil. Law Review,

Rica,

36(1),

135-146.

https://www.scielo.sa.cr/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pi

d=S1409-00152019000100135

Human-Hendricks, A., y Roman, N. (2014). What is the link

between antisocial behavior of adolescents and parenting:

a systematic review of parental practices to manage

antisocial behavior. Journal of Communications Research,

(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.18272/ulr.v9i1.2447

Borbón, D. (2021). Trastorno de la personalidad antisocial desde el

neuroderecho: responsabilidad penal, libre albedrío y retos

de política criminal. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias

(4), 439-464.

Jácome, J., León, I., Campaña, L., y Jiménez, R. (2023). La

investigación y publicación en la psicología jurídica.

Bibliotecas. Anales de Investigación, 19(1), 1-7.

https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/9075940.pdf

Jiménez, L. (1976). Tratado de Derecho Penal. Editorial Losada.

Jurjako, M., & Malatesti, L. (2018). Neuropsychology and the

criminal responsibility of psychopaths: Reconsidering the

Penales,

4(13),

187-218.

https://revistaciencias.inacipe.gob.mx/index.php/02/articl

e/view/416

Carabellese, F., Felthous, A. R., Mandarelli, G., Montalbò, D.,

Tegola, D. L., Rossetto, L., Franconi, F., y Catanesi, R.

(

2019). Psychopathy in Italian female murderers.

Behavioral Sciences

& the Law, 37(5), 602–613.

evidence. 1003-1025.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-017-

924-0

Erkenntnis,

83(5),

doi:10.1002/bsl.2430

Cáseres-Serrano, T., y López-Robledo, Y. (2018). Relación entre

eventos traumáticos durante la infancia y el desarrollo del

trastorno de la personalidad antisocial: Una revisión

sistemática. Simposio Sobre la Práctica Forense en Salud

Mental. Ponce Health Sciences University, School of

Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

Casanueva, I. (2014). Una revisión del concepto de imputabilidad

desde las ciencias de la salud. Su compatibilidad con la

regulación penal vigente. Estudios de Deusto, 62(1), 15-

Jurjako, M., Malatesti, L., y Brazil, I. (2021). The Societal Response

to Psychopathy in the Community. International Journal

of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 1-27,

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624x211023918

Jurjako, M., Maltesi, L., y Brazil., I. (2023). How to advance the

debate on the criminal responsibility of antisocial

offenders.

Neuroethics,

17(1),

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-023-09535-0

López, S. (2013). Revisión de la psicopatía: Pasado, presente y

futuro. Revista Puertorriqueña de Psicología, 24(2), 1-16.

https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2332/233229143007.pdf

Malatesi, L., McMillan, J., y Sustar, P. (2022). Psychopathy. Its

uses, validity and status. Srpinger.

Mata, L. (2020). Hacia una construcción spinoziana de la

imputabilidad penal: la discusión entre determinismo y

libre albedrío. Revista de Filosofía de la Universidad de

https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/4793773.pdf

Chirino, L., & Giménez, M. (2019). Conducta criminal y su relación

con la imputabilidad como elemento del delito. Iustitia

Socialis: Revista Arbitrada de Ciencias Jurídicas y

Criminalísticas,

4(6),

28-51.

https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=704943

Decety, J. (2020). Decety, J. (2020). La psychopathie – L’éclairage

des neurosciences médicolégales. L’Encéphale, 1(46),

Costa 93-104.

https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/filosofia/article/view/4

432

Rica,

59(154),

01-307. https://doi:10.1016/j.encep.2020.02.007

DeLisi, M., Drury, A. & Elbert, M. (2019). The etiology of antisocial

personality disorder: The differential roles of adverse

childhood experiences and childhood psychopathology.

Oranges, C. (2018). The bioethics of “malice” and the concept of

imputability in the criminal trial, in the light of the Orlando

reform and the contribution of neuroscience to the

Forensic psychopathology. Revista di Psicopatologia

Forense, Medicina Legale, Criminologia, 23(2), 81-93.

https://doi.org/10.4081/psyco.2018.34

Comprehensive

psychiatry,

92,

1-6.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2019.04.001

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13821381

South American Research Journal, 4(1), 27-34

https://www.sa-rj.net/index.php/sarj/article/view/48

ISSN 2806-5638

Orenes, M. (2020). Fundamento médico legal de la imputabilidad en

los distintos trastornos psiquiátricos. Importancia de la

prueba pericial psiquiátrica. Gaceta internacional de

ciencias 46-55,

forenses,

(37),

https://www.uv.es/gicf/4A3_Orenes_GICF_37.pdf

Organización Mundial de la Salud (2022). Clasificación

Internacional de Enfermedades. 11ava Revisión CIE-11.

http://id.who.int/icd/entity/941859884

Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., y Elmagarmid, A.

(

2016). Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic

reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(1).

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4

Raine, A. (2019). The neuromoral theory of antisocial, violent, and

psychopathic behavior. Psychiatry Research, 277, 64-69.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S01651

8118319140

Ramírez, O. (2019). El trastorno antisocial de la personalidad, su

actualidad frente al sistema de justicia penal adversarial y

oral.

Acta

Educativa,

2(2).

https://revista.universidadabierta.edu.mx/2019/12/30/el-

trastorno-antisocial-de-la-personalidad-su-actualidad-

frente-al-sistema-de-justicia-penal-adversarial-y-oral/

Ronco, M. (2014). La relación entre imputación y responsabilidad.

Prudentia Iuris, 1(78), 163-178.

Roxin, C. (1981). Culpabilidad, prevención y responsabilidad en

Derecho Penal. Ediciones Reus.

Salvador, B., Pérez, B., Fernández, L., Bringas, C., y Rodríguez, F.

(

2015). La psicopatía: una revisión bibliográfica y

bibliométrica. Arquivos Brasileiros de Psicología, 67(2),

05-121. http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/arbp/v67n2/09.pdf

Santos-de Pascual, A., Saura-Garre, P., y López-Soler, C. (2020).

Salud mental en personas con trastorno por consumo de

sustancias: aspectos diferenciales entre hombres

mujeres. Anales de Psicología, 36(3), 443-450,

https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.399291

Shin‑Yee, R. (2023). Psychopathology of antisocial personality

disorder: from the structural, functional and biochemical

perspectives. Wong Egypt J Neurol Psychiatry Neurosurg,

9(113),

2-14,

https://doi.org/10.1186/s41983-023-

0717-4

Serra, J. (2016). El diagnóstico del narcisismo: una lectura

relacional.

Revista

Asociación

Española

Neuropsicología,

36(129),

171-187,

https://doi.org/10.4321/S0211-57352016000100011

Sue, D., Wing, D., y Sue S. (2010). Psicopatología. Comprendiendo

la conducta anormal. Novena Edición. Cengage Learning.

Urrútia, G. y Bonfill, X. (2010). Declaración PRISMA: Una

propuesta para mejorar la publicación de revisiones

sistemáticas y metaanálisis. Med Clin, 135(11), 507-511.

http://www.laalamedilla.org/Investigacion/Recursos/PRI

SMA%20Spanish%20Sept%202010.pdf

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13821381