Bent Minds

A criminal psychologist identifies traits of psychopathy and asserts some characteristics may be useful

Secret Looking Glass

One of the best skills an investigator can have is an innate ability to read people.  And what reading a person is exactly may be debatable.  Suffice to say, this ability affords some with being able to see through disguises or to unconsciously detect unseen clues about the true nature and motivations of people. Sure, some skills related to understanding the behaviors and intentions of people can be taught but when it comes to this so called sixth sense, it is truly a gift.

Advantage for the good

The investigator who can capture some hidden essence about a subject, whether it be a client, witness or suspect, gains an invaluable upper hand. With this feeling or intuition, the investigator realizes a great vision which allows for maneuverability when aptly applied.  The investigator is able to avoid pitfalls and dead ends and it may help with quickly finding the truth.

Advantage for the not-so-good

Interestingly, persons diagnosed with psychopathic tendencies may also possess the characteristics of someone who can effectually read people.  In a recent article about the work of Professor Robert Hare who is a criminal psychologist, he identifies a set of attributes psychopaths typically possess. One of which was the ability to be cunning and manipulative.

Tables turned

Dr Hare’s research indicates psychopaths somehow know what you’re feeling, but are unable to feel it themselves.  And because of this, psychopaths can understand what you’re thinking and can use you against yourself because they don’t care.  This begs the question: What does the investigator do when confronted with someone who is more cunning and manipulative than you?

Test yourself

According you Dr. Hare, you or someone you know could fall on the psychopathy spectrum.  The characteristics of a psychopath, as identified by Dr. Hare are listed below.  Score it 0 if it does not apply, 1 if it partially applies or 2 if it fully applies.

1. Glibness and superficial charm  

   

   http://jurisprudenceinquiry.blogspot.com/

2. Grandiose sense of self-worth 
3. Pathological lying
4. Cunning/manipulative 
5. Lack of remorse 
6. Emotional shallowness 
7. Callousness and lack of empathy 
8. Unwillingness to accept responsibility for actions 
9. A tendency to boredom 
10. A parasitic lifestyle 
11. A lack of realistic long-term goals 
12. Impulsivity 
13. Irresponsibility 
14. Lack of behavioral control 
15. Behavioral problems in early life 
16. Juvenile delinquency 
17. Criminal versatility 
18. A history of “revocation of conditional release” (i.e. broken parole)
19. Multiple marriages 
20. Promiscuous sexual behavior

According to Dr. Hare a “pure, prototypical psychopath would score 40. A score of 30 or more qualifies for a diagnosis of psychopath.”

Use it to your advantage

Dr. Hare goes on to assert that some psychopathic traits can be beneficial.   For example, being cunning and manipulative can certainly a desirable attribute, especially if you are a professional investigator.  But is being cunning and manipulative the same as having the ability to read people. From an intent perspective, both afford the ability to gain the upper hand. The difference lies in how the person being read suffers from the encounter.

Match of wits

Not every interviewee will be a game of high stakes chess like Clarice versus Hannibal in the Silence of the Lambs.  But, if Dr. Hare’s assertion is true and there is a spectrum of psycohpathy, then it would be incumbent upon the investigator to seek out these signs in the people they encounter.  While only a professional can label someone a psychopath, the astute person can certainly read the tea leaves and leverage that information to their advantage.  Is that psychotic or what?

The Crime-Business Balance

Is it responsible to ignore crime if you think you have a just reason?  

The Cost

http://www.standard.co.uk/

Business operators look at risks and decide how much of it to tolerate. Part of tolerating a certain amount of risk can also mean revealing a willingness to take losses for the sake of generating sales and absorbing market share. This balance is famously summed up as "the cost of doing business." This cost is typically measured in dollars but to gain those dollars, you have to give something up.  What that something is may not be quantifiable but it is real.  Such is the nature of risk taking.

Fight or Flee

A trade-off lumped into "the cost of doing business" is tolerating a certain amount of crime.  We commonly hear of employee theft or shrinkage.  We hear of malingering and filing false worker's compensation claims.  Not every loss due to crime can be stopped but for the most part, they are confronted and mitigated everyday by professionals who work hard to protect their business from this financial erosion.  These issues exist as a result of criminal behaviors of individuals and to ignore these issues, would be ruinous. Anything less than a total concerted effort stop this behavior is not the norm. Unless, however, that effort to stop the behavior impacts market share. Take for example, the interesting decision by Microsoft to cease internal investigations related to theft for the sake of market share.

Investigation Compromised Business

Not long ago, Microsoft uncovered the theft of a source code for one of their products.  They were able to track down the source of the leak through an internal investigation.  The Microsoft investigators "cracked" the case by legally accessing a Hotmail account of someone involved in the scheme.  An ex-Microsoft employee was subsequently charged in Federal court for this theft of a trade secret.  Despite the investigative success, the case revealed Microsoft's access to and review of their customer's Hotmail account.  Despite this practice being the legal right of Microsoft, the appearance of backlash over the perceived privacy violation resulted in a policy change at Microsoft. So, instead of conducting their own internal investigations involving stolen property (intellectual or physical) the company "will refer the matter to Law Enforcement if further action is required."

Law Enforcement to the Rescue

By passing investigations along to law enforcement, Microsoft is banking the invasion of their customer's Hotmail accounts via search warrant will deflect any ill will toward the company as they would have to be compliant with the law.  This makes it sound better to the privacy concerned customer and Microsoft sees itself as being on the moral high ground of the privacy issue.  It really reveals how much Microsoft perceives privacy to be a critical market share driver.  This is where the trade-off for this policy change gets dangerous. Regardless of their motivation for the change Microsoft is also gambling that the public servants in Law Enforcement can adequately protect their intellectual secrets.  This is a tremendous vote of confidence for local law enforcement and hopefully, for Microsoft's sake, they have the talent and resources to do the job.

One Risk for Others

Even if law enforcement is up to the task, this shift in policy still leaves gaps. For one, Microsoft is potentially giving up critical time by passing this along. Law enforcement, no matter how much access they have, will still not be as quick to respond as company investigators.  Another issue would be this knowledge is now known to criminals. They know where the weakness lies and have gained valuable time to move information out of the company. Finally, and most importantly, what if a criminal act impacts the stability of a platform?  Microsoft may have the ability to stop this issue but because of an internal policy, they pass it to an outside source.  In the mean time, a critical event occurs and a system is compromised.  Hopefully, Microsoft built protections into their policies and procedures to prevent this from happening.

Win - Win?

In the end, "the cost of doing business" is a slippery slope especially when it comes to finding a balance between market share and tolerated losses.  It is revealing how privacy issues in the marketplace have altered this equation. What may be lost are the voices of those customers who would rather lose a certain level of privacy to ensure a stable service from a company that does not yield to criminals for the sake of market share.