The portrayal of psychopathy in media significantly shapes public perception, and few shows have delved into this complex disorder as deeply as Dexter. This article analyzes the eighth and final season of Dexter, focusing on how biological determinism is thematically used to explain Dexter Morgan’s psychopathy. Specifically, we explore the concept of “Dexter Morgan Diagnosis” as presented in the show and examine its potential impact on viewers’ understanding of psychopathy and the criminal justice system. Through content analysis of key themes in the final season, we reveal how Dexter reinforces a fatalistic view of psychopathy, suggesting it as an immutable biological destiny, and discuss the broader implications of such portrayals.
The Context of Dexter’s Diagnosis: Neuroscience and Fatalism
Interest in psychopathy has surged in recent years, driven partly by media depictions (Kiehl & Hoffman, 2011). Psychopathy, clinically defined by a marked lack of empathy and antisocial behavior masked by superficial normalcy (Hare, 2003), is often associated with violence and a perceived inherent immorality (Keesler, 2013; Kiehl & Hoffman, 2011; Thi, 2016). This perception often leads to the belief that individuals with psychopathy are untreatable and fully culpable for their actions (Boccaccini, Murrie, Clark, & Cornell, 2008; Murrie, Boccaccini, Johnson, & Janke, 2008).
Public understanding of psychopathy, largely influenced by media representations, can significantly impact the criminal justice system (Keesler, 2013). The perceived dangerousness of psychopaths can sway jurors, judges, and attorneys, leading to harsher punishments (Lyon & Ogloff, 2000; Marshall, Lilienfeld, Mayberg, & Clark, 2017; Thi, 2016). Studies show that attributing “evilness” or remorselessness to offenders, often linked to psychopathy, results in more punitive sentencing (Costanzo & Peterson, 1994; Cox, Clark, Edens, Smith, & Magyar, 2013; Cox, Edens, Rulseh, & Clark, 2016; Sundby, 1997). This is increasingly relevant as psychopathy evidence gains traction in criminal courts (DeMatteo et al., 2014).
Concurrent with growing media interest, scientific research into the neurobiological basis of psychopathy has expanded (Umbach, Berryessa, & Raine, 2015). This research highlights brain abnormalities in psychopaths, particularly in areas like the prefrontal cortex and amygdala, suggesting a biological underpinning for the disorder’s core traits (Kiehl & Hoffman, 2011; Mobbs, Lau, Jones, & Frith, 2007; Umbach et al., 2015). The presentation of neuroscience evidence in court is also on the rise, with studies exploring its impact on legal judgments. For instance, research indicates that neuroscience evidence can mitigate perceptions of responsibility and reduce punitive sentencing for psychopathic offenders (Aspinwall, Brown, and Tabery, 2012; Saks, Schweitzer, Aharoni, and Kiehl, 2014).
Lay understanding of psychopathy is largely shaped by media portrayals, not direct experience with the criminal justice system or scientific research (Furnham, Daoud, & Swami, 2009; Hesse, 2009; Keesler, 2013). Television crime dramas, hugely popular and watched for hours daily by average adults, significantly influence public perceptions of crime and justice (Donnelly, 2012; Keesler, 2013; Tyler, 2005; Surette & Otto, 2002; Surette, 2013). This “CSI effect” extends beyond forensic science to shape broader views on criminal behavior and responsibility (Cole & Dioso-Villa, 2006; Hughes & Magers, 2007; Wise, 2009).
The increasing prevalence of neurobiological explanations for psychopathy in media, seen in shows like Hannibal and Dexter (Keesler, 2013; Leistedt & Linkowski, 2014; Pisters, 2014; Stadler, 2017), contributes to a growing public awareness and interest in the neuroscience of psychopathy (Skeem, Polaschek, Patrick, & Lilienfeld, 2011; Thi, 2016). This creates the potential for a psychopathy-specific “CSI effect,” where media depictions of biological determinism in psychopathy heavily influence public perception and legal judgments. This article analyzes Dexter season 8 to understand how it portrays the biological influences on psychopathy and the potential implications for public understanding and the criminal justice system.
We focus on the final season of Dexter because it explicitly introduces a biological framework for understanding Dexter’s psychopathy through Dr. Evelyn Vogel, a neuroscientist specializing in psychopathic disorders. This season, unlike previous ones, shifts the narrative from Dexter’s internal moral justifications to an external, scientific “dexter morgan diagnosis.” The season’s climax, where Dexter fakes his death, can be interpreted as a culmination of this fatalistic biological narrative – an acceptance of his unchangeable nature. Our analysis examines key qualitative themes in season 8 to understand how they contribute to this portrayal of biological fatalism and its potential “CSI effect.”
Dexter’s final monologue underscores this fatalistic theme: “I destroy everyone I love… I have to protect them – from me.” (Ep. 12). This sentiment, framed within the season’s emphasis on biological determinism, suggests Dexter’s psychopathy is an inescapable biological fate.
Methodology: Decoding Dexter Through Content Analysis
Dexter centers on Dexter Morgan, a blood spatter analyst leading a double life as a serial killer. Guided by “the code” instilled by his foster father, Harry Morgan, Dexter targets criminals who evade legal justice. Initially based on Jeff Lindsay’s Darkly Dreaming Dexter novels, the TV series evolved, exploring Dexter’s relationships and attempts at a normal life. However, the final season emphasizes his psychopathic identity as biologically predetermined and inescapable.
This analysis employs traditional content analysis (Altheide and Schneider, 2013) to examine the thematic portrayal of biological fatalism in Dexter season 8. By analyzing dialogue, internal monologues, and character development across all 12 episodes (detailed coding available in Supplemental Information), we identified seven recurring qualitative themes rooted in scientific and traditional assumptions about psychopathy.
Our seven qualitative codes are:
- Psychopath as Outsider/Non-Human/Monster: Depictions of psychopaths as fundamentally different, alienated from society, or monstrous.
- Lack of Feelings/Emotions: Emphasis on psychopaths’ inability to feel or empathize.
- Moral Code as Construct: Examination of Dexter’s “code” and its scientific or moral validity.
- Trauma as Determinant: The idea that past trauma (Dexter witnessing his mother’s murder) irrevocably shaped his psychopathy.
- Compulsion to Kill: Portrayal of killing as a biological “need” or compulsion for psychopaths.
- Salvation/Redemption Myth: The (ultimately futile) desire for psychopaths to become “normal” or be redeemed.
- Dark Passenger/Alter Ego: Use of metaphors like “dark passenger” to externalize psychopathic urges as an uncontrollable entity.
Analysis: Themes of Biological Fatalism in Dexter’s Diagnosis
Psychopath as Outsider/Not ‘Normal’/Not ‘Human’/Monster/Beast
Dr. Vogel consistently frames Dexter as fundamentally “other.” Her discussions emphasize the supposed neurological deficits of psychopaths, citing amygdala dysfunction as the biological basis for their emotional detachment. She reveals that the “code” was scientifically engineered in collaboration with Harry, not as a moral guide, but as a behavioral management tool for Dexter’s inherent psychopathic tendencies. Vogel reinforces the inevitability of Dexter’s path, stating Harry believed it was the only way Dexter could survive “the way he was made.” Throughout the season, Vogel repeatedly refers to “people like you,” positioning Dexter as a statistical anomaly, a case study rather than an individual.
Dexter: “You keep talking about me like I’m some kind of alternate species. Like I’m less than human.” (Ep. 2)
Dexter’s own comparison of Vogel to “Dr. Frankenstein” highlights his perception of being treated as a monster, a scientific creation rather than a person. Furthermore, the season portrays other psychopaths, including Vogel’s son Oliver and other patients, as similarly trapped by their nature, reinforcing the fatalistic view that “you cannot escape your biology.”
Feelings/Emotions/Faking/Masks
Vogel consistently dismisses Dexter’s expressions of emotion as superficial or inherently different from “normal” human feelings. She pathologizes any display of affection, suggesting it lacks genuine depth. Dexter himself, at times, adopts this biological deterministic view, using his “limited brain” as an excuse to deflect emotional responsibility.
Dexter: “No, I don’t understand. Haven’t you heard anything she said? I’m stupid that way, my brain is limited.” (Ep. 5).
However, the season also ironically shows Dexter struggling with emotional control. He exhibits outbursts of rage, choking a driver and yelling at his son, behaviors that deviate from his typically controlled psychopathic persona. This suggests a loss of his carefully constructed “mask,” revealing a more conventionally volatile anger. Yet, Vogel interprets even these outbursts as further evidence of his inherent psychopathy, reinforcing the narrative of emotional deficit.
Vogel explicitly states that psychopaths’ expressions of “love” are fundamentally different, driven by self-interest rather than genuine emotional connection.
Vogel: “Selfless love is hard enough for typical people. And for psychopaths it’s impossible.” (Ep. 3)
Despite Vogel’s pronouncements, Dexter attempts to defy this diagnosis. He genuinely seeks a relationship with Hannah, expressing love and a desire for a “normal” family life.
Dexter: “Actually I was going to say I love you.”
Hannah: “I love you too.” (Ep. 9)
However, Vogel dismisses this desire as unrealistic, scientifically impossible for a psychopath. The series ultimately concludes with Dexter accepting this fatalistic diagnosis, choosing isolation over connection, reinforcing the idea that his biology dictates his emotional limitations.
Standards/Codes/Right/Wrong/Moral Structures
The revelation that Dr. Vogel scientifically engineered Dexter’s “code” undermines its moral authority. It becomes less a genuine moral compass and more a manipulative tool designed to manage, not eliminate, Dexter’s psychopathic urges. This scientific origin diminishes the code’s perceived ethical weight, reducing Dexter’s morality to a manufactured construct.
Dexter: “Deb, Dad and Vogel gave me the Code so I’d know the right thing to do, but you’ve always just known. It’s the compass I always wished I had. And as long as you listen to that, you won’t need me. You’ll be fine.”
Deb: “Maybe. But don’t ever think it was the Code that made you a good brother. There’s a human being in there. There always has been. Even if you can’t see it.” (Ep. 11)
Ironically, Dexter ultimately breaks the code by causing Deb’s death, an innocent victim. This act highlights the code’s ultimate inadequacy and reinforces the fatalistic narrative. The code, presented as a scientific solution, fails to prevent tragedy and cannot alter Dexter’s inherent nature. Furthermore, the discovery of Harry’s videotapes documenting Dexter’s kills reveals the precarity of Dexter’s freedom, suggesting he was always living on borrowed time, further emphasizing his predetermined path.
Damage/Change/Birth – He ‘Became’ a Psychopath by Being ‘Damaged’
Vogel explicitly frames Dexter’s psychopathy as originating from his traumatic childhood experience, solidifying the biological fatalist argument.
Vogel: “You know, Dexter’s need to kill was born in a container much like this one and he’s been trapped inside its walls ever since. As a psychopath he will never be able to break free.” (Episode 4)
This statement asserts Dexter’s destiny as a killer was predetermined by his early trauma, a biological inevitability. Vogel’s perspective is not about preventing psychopathy but managing its expression, reinforcing the idea that Dexter’s nature is immutable.
Vogel: “It was obvious that you not only showed all the classic traits of a psychopath but that you would eventually become a killer. So we were faced with a little dilemma – what to do with you. It was me who convinced Harry that your urges couldn’t be stopped but they could be focused.” (Ep. 2)
Dexter grapples with whether his psychopathy stems from the trauma or Vogel’s manipulative “framework.” Regardless, both explanations reinforce a sense of predetermined destiny, a fatalistic trajectory he cannot escape.
Free Will/Control/Urges – ‘Can’t Help’, ‘Have to’
The introduction of Zach, a young psychopath mentored by Dexter, explores the theme of free will versus biological imperative. Dexter initially sees Zach as a potential protégé, even considering him a successor. However, witnessing Zach’s inherent “need to kill” mirrors Dexter’s own internal struggle, leading him to question his perceived control.
Harry: “Killing consumed you, crept into everything you did. It was all you had. But now?”
Dexter: “Now I have Harrison.”
Harry: “He isn’t a complication. Hannah is.”
Dexter: “She’s more of a – distraction.”
Harry: “Or is it possible there’s a stronger desire in you now? Stronger than the need to kill?” (Ep. 8)
Dexter initially believes his love for Hannah and Harrison has superseded his “dark urges,” suggesting he has transcended his psychopathic nature through love and connection. However, this assertion of free will is ultimately undermined by the series’ ending. Dexter’s final choice to abandon Hannah and Harrison, faking his death, signifies an acceptance of his biological determinism. He ultimately concludes that he cannot control his psychopathic nature and must succumb to his predetermined fate.
Salvation/Redemption/Heroism – Wanting to ‘Return to Humanity’
Dexter briefly entertains the idea of salvation through family life with Hannah and Harrison, envisioning a normal future in Argentina. He even attempts to mentor Zach, perhaps seeking a form of redemption through guidance. The scene of Zach, Hannah, and Dexter together in a car fleetingly presents a possibility of a non-conventional “family,” hinting at a potential integration of Dexter’s psychopathy into a semblance of normalcy.
However, this hope is brutally extinguished by Zach’s death and the subsequent tragic events. Dexter’s conversation with Vogel’s son, Daniel, further emphasizes the impossibility of his redemption.
Daniel: “And what do you see?”
Dexter: [sighs] “A trail of blood and body parts.”
Daniel: “What a pretty picture.”
Dexter: “In one sharp moment you took away this foolish dream that I could have a happy life.” (Ep. 12)
This exchange highlights the futility of Dexter’s aspirations for a “happy life,” reinforcing the fatalistic narrative. The “bright light” of potential redemption is overshadowed by the “perpetual presence of the darkness.” Dexter’s ultimate act of killing Saxon in “self-defense,” captured on video, further cements his image as a quintessential psychopath in the public eye, obliterating any possibility of heroic redemption.
Darkness/Alter Ego/Passenger/Wolf
The “dark passenger” metaphor, central to Dexter’s self-perception in previous seasons, is notably absent in season 8. Initially, Dexter asserts control over his urges, denying the existence of an external “dark passenger.” However, the tragic consequences of his actions, culminating in Deb’s death, force him to confront the reality of his psychopathic nature as an inescapable entity.
The juxtaposition of Dexter’s hopeful outlook before Deb’s death and his subsequent despair underscores the power of biological fatalism. He believes he has outsmarted his diagnosis, achieving a balance between his psychopathic urges and emotional fulfillment. This illusion shatters with Deb’s death, leading him to embrace isolation and self-punishment.
Dexter: [internal] “I used to live my life at night. In the shadow of my dark passenger. I lived in shadows for so long, until the dark became my world. But over time, the people in my life flipped on a light. At first I was blinded, it was so bright. But over the years, my eyes adjusted, and I could see. And now what’s in focus is my future. Bright. Brighter than it’s ever been.” (Ep. 11)
This optimistic monologue, immediately preceding Deb’s death, highlights the dramatic reversal of Dexter’s fate. The “bright light” of hope is extinguished, replaced by the overwhelming “darkness” of his psychopathy. While the “dark passenger” is not explicitly mentioned, the series concludes with Dexter embracing a metaphorical “blackness,” suggesting his psychopathic nature, the “dark passenger,” ultimately triumphs.
Conclusion: Dexter’s Diagnosis and the Psychopathy-Related “CSI Effect”
This analysis demonstrates how Dexter season 8 thematically portrays biological influences on psychopathy, emphasizing fatalism and the inevitability of succumbing to one’s “biological self.” These thematic portrayals, reaching a broad audience, have the potential to shape public understanding of psychopathy, creating a psychopathy-related “CSI effect” (Furnham et al., 2009; Hesse, 2009; Keesler, 2013). This “CSI effect” could influence public perception of psychopaths in the criminal justice system, particularly regarding punishment and moral responsibility.
The portrayal of psychopathy as biologically “inevitable” in Dexter may reinforce the idea that punishment is ineffective for psychopathic offenders. The season’s emphasis on Dexter’s “biological fate” and Vogel’s “not if, but when” mentality regarding his violence suggests that traditional punishments may not deter individuals driven by inherent biological predispositions (Fowles, 1980; Piquero, 2017). This portrayal could strengthen public support for incapacitation as the primary goal of punishment for psychopaths, prioritizing public safety over rehabilitation (Aharoni, Weintraub, & Fridlund, 2007; Umbach et al., 2015; Lyon & Ogloff, 2000; Marshall et al., 2017; Thi, 2016). The perceived “evilness” and remorselessness, amplified by the biological determinist narrative, could further drive punitive sentiments (Costanzo & Peterson, 1994; Cox etal., 2013; Cox etal., 2016; Sundby, 1997).
Furthermore, Dexter‘s portrayal of psychopaths as having “limited brains” regarding morality could impact public views on moral responsibility. If psychopathy is seen as a biological condition rendering individuals incapable of moral understanding, it could lead to reduced perceptions of moral culpability (Levy, 2007; Godman & Jefferson, 2017). This could, paradoxically, lead to calls for leniency in sentencing, as psychopaths might be seen as less morally blameworthy due to their biological limitations (Godman & Jefferson, 2017).
These contrasting implications of “biological fatalism” – increased punitiveness due to perceived dangerousness versus reduced culpability due to biological determinism – create a “double-edged sword” effect in criminal justice contexts (Denno, 2015). In sentencing, particularly in capital cases and jurisdictions with juror sentencing (Fabian, 2010; Umbach et al., 2015), these competing interpretations could influence lay decision-makers. The perception of psychopaths as unchangeably dangerous could aggravate sentencing, supporting harsher punishments and incapacitation (Aspinwall et al., 2012; Umbach et al., 2015). Conversely, the view of psychopaths as biologically limited in their moral agency could mitigate sentencing, reducing support for retributive punishments like the death penalty (Monterosso, Royzman, & Schwartz, 2005; Aspinwall et al., 2012; Saks et al., 2014).
Given that judges may share similar lay understandings of psychopathy (Chauhan et al., 2007), these “biological fatalism” messages could influence judicial decision-making as well (Moustapha, 2015). This highlights the broad potential impact of media portrayals on various aspects of the criminal justice system.
Finally, the fatalistic portrayal of psychopathy in Dexter likely diminishes public support for rehabilitation. By presenting psychopathy as biologically fixed and inevitable, the show reinforces pessimism about treatment effectiveness (Hilton, Harris, & Rice, 2006; Skeem et al., 2011). This contrasts with some researchers’ optimism about future neuroscience-informed treatments for psychopathy (Glenn & Raine, 2009). Media portrayals emphasizing biological determinism, like Dexter‘s depiction of a fixed “dark passenger,” may hinder public support for and investment in developing effective interventions.
In conclusion, Dexter‘s final season utilizes biological determinism to explain Dexter Morgan’s diagnosis of psychopathy, portraying it as an inescapable biological fate. This thematic emphasis has significant potential to shape public understanding of psychopathy and influence attitudes within the criminal justice system. Further research should examine other media portrayals of biologically influenced psychopathy and compare them to Dexter‘s narrative, exploring both similarities and differences in their potential “CSI effect” on public perception and the legal landscape.
Supplementary Material
Supplemental Material
NIHMS1008657-supplement-Supplemental_Material.doc (160KB, doc)
Footnotes
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103–019-9470–1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Over the course of the season, Dr. Vogel’s son, Daniel, murders innocent members of the public and carves out the amygdala to send a message to his mother. Miami Metro refers to him as the “Brain Surgeon” and we acknowledge, but do not discuss, this subplot of Season 8 as relevant to Dexter’s fatalist story arc.
Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supplemental Material
NIHMS1008657-supplement-Supplemental_Material.doc (160KB, doc)
Aharoni, E., Weintraub, S., & Fridlund, A. J. (2007). Can neuroscience inform law? Neuroscience, law, and policy. *New York: Dana Press*.
Altheide, D. L., & Schneider, C. J. (2013). *Qualitative media analysis* (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Aspinwall, L. G., Brown, T. R., & Tabery, J. (2012). The double-edged sword: Does neuroscience evidence mitigate or aggravate judgments of criminal responsibility? *Behavioral Sciences & the Law*, *30*(5), 469–480.
Baskin, D. R., & Sommers, I. (2010). Television, forensic evidence, and CSI effects on jury decision-making. *Journal of Criminal Justice*, *38*(6), 1165–1172.
Boccaccini, M. T., Murrie, D. C., Clark, J., & Cornell, D. G. (2008). Views of clinical and forensic psychologists on the usefulness of the psychopathy checklist-revised in civil commitment evaluations of sexually dangerous persons. *Behavioral Sciences & the Law*, *26*(5), 617–633.
Chauhan, P., Reppucci, N. D., & Burnette, M. L. (2007). Capital jurors’ perceptions of juvenile offenders. *Behavioral Sciences & the Law*, *25*(4), 535–554.
Cole, S. A. (2015). *Suspect identities: A history of fingerprinting and criminal identification*. Harvard university press.
Cole, S. A., & Dioso-Villa, R. (2006). CSI and its effects: Media, juries, and the burden of proof. *Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities*, *18*(1), 233–294.
Costanzo, S., & Peterson, C. (1994). Mock jurors’ sensitivity to mitigating and aggravating factors in capital cases: Impact of jury instructions and defendant psychopathy. *Behavioral Sciences & the Law*, *12*(3), 303–317.
Cox, J., Clark, J., Edens, J. F., Smith, S. F., & Magyar, M. S. (2013). Capital jurors’ perceptions of psychopathy and its influence on sentencing decisions. *Behavioral Sciences & the Law*, *31*(5), 604–623.
Cox, J., Edens, J. F., Rulseh, A. M., & Clark, J. J. (2016). Mock jurors’ perceptions of the psychopathic offender: The influence of psychopathy label and crime severity. *Behavioral Sciences & the Law*, *34*(2–3), 372–390.
DeMatteo, D., Edens, J. F., Cox, J., Smith, S. F., Desmarais, S. L., & Petrila, J. (2014). The admissibility of evidence relevant to psychopathy in criminal proceedings: A survey of judges. *Psychology, Public Policy, and Law*, *20*(1), 73–87.
Denno, D. W. (2015). Neuroscience and criminal law: Mapping the recommendations of the macarthur foundation project on law and neuroscience. *NYU J. L. & Liberty*, *9*, 8.
Donnelly, D. (2012). CSI: Reality? The CSI effect and its impact on the American system of justice. *Journal of the Academy of Business and Public Policy*, *4*, 144.
Edens, J. F., Clark, J. J., Smith, S. F., Cox, J., & Kelley, S. E. (2013). Death qualification and attitudes toward capital punishment: Do death-qualified jurors really differ? *Behavioral Sciences & the Law*, *31*(1), 87–105.
Fabian, T. J. (2010). Death penalty sentencing by juries and judges: Is there a difference? *Criminal Justice Policy Review*, *21*(3), 347–361.
Farahany, N. A. (2016). Neuroscience and behavioral genetics in US criminal law: An empirical analysis. *Journal of Law and Biosciences*, *3*(3), 485–509.
Fowles, D. C. (1980). Psychophysiology and psychopathy: A motivational approach. In R. Hare & D. Schalling (Eds.), *Psychopathic behaviour: Approaches to research* (pp. 53–80). Chichester: Wiley.
Furnham, A., Daoud, Y., & Swami, V. (2009). Lay theories of rape and rapists. *Psychology, Crime & Law*, *15*(2–3), 191–207.
Glenn, A. L., & Raine, A. (2009). Neurocriminology: Implications for the punishment, prediction and prevention of criminal behavior. *Nature Reviews Neuroscience*, *9*(9), 687–696.
Godman, M., & Jefferson, A. (2017). Responsibility and the psychopath. *Philosophical Explorations*, *20*(sup1), 51–71.
Goidel, R. K., Freeman, J., & Procopio, N. (2006). Reality TV and attitudes toward juvenile crime and juvenile offenders. *Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture*, *13*(3), 171–189.
Hare, R. D. (2003). *Hare psychopathy checklist-revised (PCL-R)* (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.
Harris, R. J. (1993). Impact of crime and violence on television. *Aggression and Violent Behavior*, *1*(1), 45–53.
Hesse, M. (2009). Psychopathy in film: A representative approach. *International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology*, *53*(6), 645–661.
Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., & Rice, M. E. (2006). *Antisocial personality disorder*.
Hughes, G., & Magers, T. (2007). The CSI effect: Does it really exist? *Valparaiso University Law Review*, *41*(2), 429–454.
Keesler, A. (2013). *Psychopathy and popular media*. Palgrave Macmillan.
Kiehl, K. A., & Hoffman, M. B. (2011). The criminal psychopath: History, neuroscience, treatment, and economics. *Psychiatry Research*, *186*(2), 184–190.
Leistedt, S. J., & Linkowski, P. (2014). Psychopathy and the cinema: Fact or fiction? *Journal of Forensic Sciences*, *59*(1), 167–174.
Levy, N. (2007). The responsibility of the psychopath revisited. *Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology*, *14*(2), 129–146.
Lyon, D. R., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2000). The impact of psychopathy and rater training on juror decisions. *Law and Human Behavior*, *24*(1), 117–138.
Marshall, J. L., Lilienfeld, S. O., Mayberg, H. S., & Clark, J. J. (2017). What’s in a name? Implications of diagnostic labels for death penalty sentencing. *Psychology, Public Policy, and Law*, *23*(1), 100–110.
Mobbs, D., Lau, H. C., Jones, O. D., & Frith, C. D. (2007). Law, responsibility, and the brain. *PLoS Biology*, *5*(4), e103.
Monterosso, J., Royzman, E. B., & Schwartz, B. (2005). Explaining away responsibility: Effect of scientific explanation on perceived culpability. *Consciousness and Cognition*, *14*(4), 573–588.
Moustapha, A. A. (2015). The mitigating effect of psychopathy on criminal responsibility: A comparative study between the US and Egyptian laws. *Journal of Forensic Psychology*, *1*(1), 1–7.
Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Johnson, J. T., & Janke, C. (2008). Perceptions and use of psychopathy in forensic psychology and psychiatry: A survey of experts. *Behavioral Sciences & the Law*, *26*(1), 77–93.
Petrila, J., & Skeem, J. L. (2003). Mental illness, violence, and the law. In R. A. Bernat, P. B. Lewinsohn, & L. E. Beutler (Eds.), *The handbook of clinical psychology: Volume 5, law and ethics* (pp. 117–143). New York: Wiley.
Piquero, A. R. (2017). Psychopathy and punishment. *Psychology, Crime & Law*, *23*(5), 459–474.
Pisters, M. (2014). *The matrix of evil: Perverting evolutionary narratives in serial killer cinema*. Amsterdam University Press.
Remmel, R. E., Glenn, A. L., & Cox, J. (2018). The influence of neuroscience evidence on mock juror decision-making in psychopathy cases. *Behavioral Sciences & the Law*, *36*(3), 307–321.
Rosenberger, N. R., & Callanan, V. J. (2011). Television viewing and support for capital punishment: The conditional role of program genre and crime beliefs. *Mass Communication and Society*, *14*(3), 362–384.
Saks, M. J., Schweitzer, N. J., Aharoni, E., & Kiehl, K. A. (2014). Neuroimages in legal contexts: A survey of US judges. *Behavioral Sciences & the Law*, *32*(6), 878–897.
Skeem, J. L., Polaschek, D. L. L., Patrick, C. J., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2011). Psychopathic personality: Bridging the gap between scientific evidence and public policy. *Psychological Science in the Public Interest*, *12*(3), 95–162.
Smith, S. F., Edens, J. F., Clark, J. J., & Rulseh, A. M. (2014). Jurors’ perceptions of criminal responsibility, dangerousness, and malingering in offenders with psychopathy. *Law and Human Behavior*, *38*(4), 363–374.
Stadler, M. (2017). *Dexter and philosophy: Life lessons from TV’s favorite serial killer*. John Wiley & Sons.
Sundby, S. E. (1997). The capital jury and absolution: The intersection of trial strategy, remorse, and the death penalty. *Cornell Law Review*, *83*(6), 1557–1596.
Surette, R. (2002). Media, crime, and criminal justice: Images and realities (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Surette, R. (2013). Media, crime, and criminal justice: Images and realities (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Tamatea, J. A. (2015). A critical analysis of the criminal responsibility of the psychopath. *Psychiatry, Psychology and Law*, *22*(5), 715–729.
Thi, H. N. (2016). *Lay dispositional theories of criminal behavior*. ProQuest Information & Learning.
Tyler, T. R. (2005). Viewing crime via the mass media: Implications for public attitudes. In D.slf F. Hawkins & K. Maguire (Eds.), *The annual review of crime and justice* (Vol. 32, pp. 109–131). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Umbach, R., Berryessa, C. M., & Raine, A. (2015). Psychopathy: A neurodevelopmental perspective. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), *Developmental psychopathology* (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 574–618). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Viljoen, J. L., McLachlan, K., & Vincent, G. M. (2010). The evolving use and interpretation of psychopathy in forensic contexts. *Psychology, Public Policy, and Law*, *16*(1), 91–117.
Walsh, A., & Walsh, C. S. (2006). The diffusion of scientific criminology to law and justice: The case of psychopathy. *Science & Justice*, *46*(4), 217–225.
Wise, R. A. (2009). Expert psychological testimony: Is it really junk science?. *Behavioral Sciences & the Law*, *27*(5), 677–698.
