Introduction

In recent years, that has been an increased societal interest in psychopathy (Kiehl & Hoffman, 2011). Psychopathy is defined as a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with antisocial conduct but masked by an ability to appear outwardly ‘normal’ (Hare, 2003). Psychopathy has most often associated with individuals perceived to be dangerous and violent, but also the belief that these individuals have the ability to freely choose to commit immoral, depraved behaviors (Keesler, 2013; Kiehl & Hoffman, 2011; Thi, 2016). The idea that individuals with psychopathy should have the ability to regulate and control their actions often leads to views that they are unable to be successfully treated and affect their behavior through rehabilitation (Boccaccini, Murrie, Clark, & Cornell, 2008; Murrie, Boccaccini, Johnson, & Janke, 2008).

Perceptions of psychopathy generally have been thought to affect several aspects of the criminal justice system, particularly related to how lay people with no psychiatric or psychological background on the disorder, including jurors, judges, and attorneys, believe the disorder affects punishment contexts in court (Keesler, 2013). The dangerousness and violence associated with psychopathy have been known to affect juror perceptions and support for greater punishment for offenders with the disorder, particularly related to the want for incapacitation in order to protect public safety (Lyon & Ogloff, 2000; Marshall, Lilienfeld, Mayberg, & Clark, 2017; Thi, 2016). Indeed, many studies have found that perceptions of “evilness” and remorselessness of offenders, when described to have psychopathy or such traits associated with psychopathy, predict more punitive sentencing outcomes for lay populations, including mock jurors, capital jurors, and judges (e.g. Costanzo & Peterson, 1994; Cox, Clark, Edens, Smith, & Magyar, 2013; Cox, Edens, Rulseh, & Clark, 2016; Sundby, 1997). The results of these studies are important, as evidence surrounding psychopathy has been increasingly presented and considered in criminal court contexts in the last 10 years (DeMatteo et al., 2014), as well as increasingly used to inform other criminal justice contexts related to punishment (DeMatteo et al., 2014; Viljoen, McLachlan, & Vincent, 2010; Walsh & Walsh, 2006). Unsurprisingly, psychopathy has also been found to increase punitive outcomes for offenders when such evidence is utilized in Sexually Violent Predator hearings, civil commitment decisions related to mental health, and parole hearings, particularly related to perceptions of future violence or dangerousness and less potential for successful treatment (Petrila & Skeem, 2003).

Although psychopathy and how perceptions of the disorder may affect criminal justice has been a popular research topic for many years, in the last two decades particularly, there has been a burgeoning area of scientific research on the brain abnormalities of psychopaths, and correspondingly, how such functional and structural brain impairments affect the behavior, character traits, and outcomes for individuals with psychopathy (Umbach, Berryessa, & Raine, 2015). This recent literature suggests that the quintessential moral deficits, lack of empathy, callousness, dishonesty and lack of impulse control associated with psychopathy are directly influenced by neural impairments to several brain areas (Kiehl & Hoffman, 2011), including the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala (e.g. Mobbs, Lau, Jones, & Frith, 2007; Umbach et al., 2015). Along with this scientific research, there has also been a growing body of literature, particularly experimental studies, on the presentation of neuroscience evidence on psychopathy and how lay understandings of psychopathy as a biologically influenced disorder may affect punishment contexts. For example, Saks, Schweitzer, Aharoni, and Kiehl (2014) found neuroscience evidence on psychopathy reduced judgments of responsibility and death sentences in a mock capital context. Aspinwall, Brown, and Tabery (2012) found that neuroscience evidence on psychopathy significantly mitigated judges’ views on sentencing and their negative perceptions on psychopathy as an “aggravating” factor. Although Remmel, Glenn, and Cox (2018) did not find that neuroscience evidence significantly affected how psychopathy was perceived in relation to punishment by a lay sample, this study particularly demonstrates how such neuroscience evidence on psychopathy might be used in the future in court.

Given this background, it appears that lay understandings of psychopathy have the potential to affect criminal justice contexts, particularly related to punishment. Interestingly, lay theories of psychopathy are not thought to originate from the criminal justice system or the research community directly, but instead the media’s conceptualization of the disorder and its relationship to crime (Furnham, Daoud, & Swami, 2009; Hesse, 2009; Keesler, 2013). Portrayals of psychopaths in television and movies have been most traditionally as serial killers and monstrous villains who should be punished (Hesse, 2009), which have led the lay public to perceive those with the disorder in these ways (Edens, Clark, Smith, Cox, & Kelley, 2013). The phenomenon of the media affecting lay perceptions of crime and the criminal justice system is not new. Generally, television programs that center around crime, such as NCIS, the CSI franchise, Law and Order, and Criminal Minds are not only some of the most popular shows on television, as the average American adult watches almost 3 h of television a day, but also thought to increasingly affect perceptions of criminal justice as well as lay involvement in the justice process (Donnelly, 2012; Keesler, 2013; Tyler, 2005). Research suggests that the lay public learns most of what they known about the criminal justice process, not by personal experiences, but rather by consumption of television and other media on crime related issues (Surette & Otto, 2002; Surette, 2013).

As the information television presents about criminal justice is often misleading and wrong, the implications of these portrayals may significantly affect what occurs in the criminal justice system (Harris, 1993). For example, television portrayals of juvenile crime and the juvenile justice system often lead to false perceptions of juvenile crime rates and potential for violence, which could affect support for rehabilitation of juvenile offenders (Goidel, Freeman, & Procopio, 2006). Further, crime television shows and the amount of time watching such dramas are also known to increase support for retribution as the most important goal of punishment, as opposed to rehabilitation (Rosenberger & Callanan, 2011), and also affect potential jurors’ attitudes regarding scientific evidence and its influence or necessity to convict in criminal trials (Baskin & Sommers, 2010; Hughes & Magers, 2007). This latter effect has been dubbed the “CSI Effect,” which not only represents the idea that shows like CSI set “unrealistic expectations” for the public regarding the availability of and speed in which forensic evidence can be used to solve crimes (Cole & Dioso-Villa, 2006), but also the idea that portrayals surrounding the use of scientific research in criminal contexts is that such science perceived to be the “overarching truth” in a case (Hughes & Magers, 2007; Wise, 2009). Depictions of science illuminating knowledge about an offender or case and helping to “solve problems” in criminal contexts in fictional television are now thought to skew lay views on how science can and should be relevant in criminal contexts in order to explain an offender’s behavior, solve crimes, or how it should be used as evidence; this could significantly affect the legal process in cases in which scientific knowledge or evidence is present, used, or discussed (Cole, 2015).

Moving forward, portrayals of biological influences to psychopathy and corresponding tendencies have also become more widespread in television and movie representations of psychopathy in recent years, such as Hannibal and Dexter (Keesler, 2013; Leistedt & Linkowski, 2014; Pisters, 2014; Stadler, 2017). As such, neurobiological understandings of psychopathy have permeated common knowledge of the disorder as well, and the lay public appears to be not only aware of such knowledge, but appears to be significantly interested in this research (Skeem, Polaschek, Patrick, & Lilienfeld, 2011; Thi, 2016). Therefore, as the lay public learns most of what they known about the criminal justice process and psychopathy by consumption of television and other media (Furnham et al., 2009; Hesse, 2009; Keesler, 2013; Surette, 2002; Surette, 2013), it is possible that media portrayals of the neurobiological influences to psychopathy may serve to potentially affect lay understandings of psychopathy and, correspondingly, affect lay involvement in the justice process in contexts related to psychopathy.

Particularly, portrayals of biological influences to psychopathy and scientific research on the neuroscience of psychopathy may create a modern psychopathy-related “CSI Effect” in which depictions of science illuminating knowledge about psychopathy and psychopathic behavior in criminal contexts could skew lay views on how much science can tell us about or explain psychopathic behavior and how scientific evidence on the disorder should be used, understood, and considered in court. Indeed, there are significant implications of representations of this potential psychopathy-related “CSI Effect” related to portrayals of biological influences to psychopathy and their potential effects on lay perceptions of the disorder for areas of the criminal justice system (Umbach et al., 2015). For example, research has found that individuals attending jury duty reported that they viewed individuals with psychopathy as responsible for their own actions, as well as capable of determining right and wrong (Smith, Edens, Clark, & Rulseh, 2014). However, representations of biological influences to psychopathy may influence juror understandings and decision-making in cases involving psychopathy, particularly in sentencing contexts in capital cases and in the selected states still exercising juror sentencing for felonies (Fabian, 2010; Umbach et al., 2015). As judges are thought to exhibit similar types of lay understandings of psychopathy as the general public (Chauhan, Reppucci, & Burnette, 2007), representations of biological influences to psychopathy also may affect judicial decision-making in sentencing contexts, perhaps most related to perceiving the disorder as either mitigating or aggravating to punishment (Moustapha, 2015) or whether certain types of punishment would be obsolete or ineffective for these types of offenders (Umbach et al., 2015). The use of brain imaging or neuroscience information in court, for which the presentation has been growing in recent years (Farahany, 2016), on psychopathy might also be affected by such biological representations of the disorder (Glenn & Raine, 2009; Thi, 2016). Finally, perceptions of and support for potential interventions or rehabilitative methods for such offenders might also be affected by lay understandings that psychopathy has neurological underpinnings (Mobbs et al., 2007; Tamatea, 2015; Umbach et al., 2015).

Using this background as a framework, this article focuses on analyzing one particular media representation of the biological influences to psychopathy, followed by a discussion on how such portrayals may affect lay perceptions of psychopathy and correspondingly the legal process in contexts related to psychopathy as a psychopathy-related “CSI Effect”. We identify and discuss the instances throughout the eighth and final season of the television show Dexter in which knowledge on the biological influences to psychopathy shape and craft Dexter’s narrative. As the final season of Dexter was both highly anticipated and seen as a “closing” to the story of Dexter, the choices made by the production team speak volumes about social cues on, and beliefs about, psychopathy. This season introduces the biological-driven argument describing psychopathic behavior. This viewpoint allows the Dexter internal perspective and his external demise to fit the fatalist argument that, simply, you cannot escape your biology. The conclusion focuses on the messages that this final season of Dexter to the lay public about the biological influences to psychopathy and how this may create implications for punishment and the justice system as a psychopathy-related “CSI Effect.”

As a backdrop, the eighth and final season of Dexter focuses on neuroscience and the biology of psychopaths. The show introduces Dr. Evelyn Vogel, an expert on, and therapist of, those with psychopathic tendencies. She helps the Miami Police help track a serial killer called the “Brain Surgeon” who removes parts of his victims’ brains. She is the manifestation of neuroscience and “rationality” in the Dexter show and a character never mentioned in the Darkly Dreaming Dexter book versions. Up to this point, Dexter’s musings about his sense of self and the moral structure to his kills, have all been entirely through his internal thoughts. This season is the first time a scientific perspective is brought to the viewers’ attention in an attempt to define Dexter and his lifestyle. This is perhaps why the final season is most critical to the public; an objective view of Dexter’s life is brought as the show determines his “final fate.”

We argue that the qualitative themes presented in the final season of Dexter, and the inclusion of science and medical knowledge of psychopaths, lead to the ultimate belief that Dexter cannot outrun his fate. Dexter ends the series by faking his own death to become an anonymous lumberjack in the Pacific Northwest, on the basis of how his life causes pain to everyone around him. His final words are:

Dexter: [internal monologue] “I destroy everyone I love.

And I can’t let that happen to Hannah. [His girlfriend]

To Harrison. [His biological son]

I have to protect them – from me.” (Ep. 12)

All of the baseline assumptions and scientific beliefs in this season assert that Dexter is unchangeable and beholden to his biology. The series ends with the fatalist argument that you cannot escape your biology.

Methodology

The simple plot line of the Dexter series focuses on the life of Dexter Morgan, a forensic blood spatter analysis at Miami Metro. Dexter is a serial killer, but is taught in his youth a “moral code” to only stalk and kill victims who “deserve” death by his foster father, Harry Morgan. This means that Dexter only kills individuals who have previously committed heinous acts and escaped prosecution under the law. Jeff Lindsay’s novel Darkly Dreaming Dexter was the initial premise of the show and helped craft the original Dexter character, who is described and characterized as a psychopath. However, as the series progressed, storylines allowed for Dexter to venture into more “human” realms: marriage; children; family. At the end of the series, he himself turns away from those possibilities and ostracizes himself as a self-identified psychopathic “monster.”

We focus specifically on the eighth and final season of the show Dexter and utilize a traditional content analysis. As defined by Altheide and Schneider (2013), we are able to draw inferences regarding patterns of human action from the frequency of occurrence of certain events. As a result, the greater space/time/interaction theme, the greater the meaning’s significance.

Examination of all scenes of the 12 episodes led to sifting various interactions, internal monologues, and character development into the seven codes, when applicable. The entire season’s qualitative coding is provided in Supplemental Information.

Our seven qualitative codes arise from the scientific and traditional presumptions about psychopathy and serial killers.

  1. 1.

    The first code derived from the refrain of seeing and describing psychopaths as “the other”, or non-human. This can extend to simple “outsider” language to being unable to interact with society or more aggressive “monster” terminology.

  2. 2.

    The second code draws from the scientific assertion that psychopaths have no feelings, are unable to feel, and lack significant ability to empathize with others.

  3. 3.

    The third code references a subplot of the Dexter show. As Dexter was growing up, his father Harry Morgan taught him “the code” to only kill individuals who “deserve it” and have escaped the law. This code encapsulates much of the morality vernacular that is used by the characters.

  4. 4.

    The fourth code is based on the belief that a single event or trauma can damage a person for life, and cause them to change and become a killer. Dexter witnessed his mother’s bloody murder as an impressionable young child, and that event is responsible for Dexter’s lifestyle.

  5. 5.

    The fifth code encapsulates the serial killers’ “need” to kill, that it is described as a physical biological compulsion.

  6. 6.

    The sixth code is one that Dexter often references as a foil to his killings; the thought that 1 day he could be “saved” or become human.

  7. 7.

    The seventh code is the manifestation of the killings as an external entity. Often it is a scapegoat: killers blaming or pointing to a source for the drive for their psychopathic behavior. Whether it is the “Dark Passenger”, the darkness, or wolf-like imagery, Dexter often references this “Jekyll and Hyde” duality.

Analysis

Psychopath as Outsider/Not ‘Normal’/Not ‘Human’/Monster/Beast

Dr. Vogel, in her discussions about psychopaths generally, focuses on the lack of empathy commonly attributed to these individuals and that Dexter’s attitudes are to be expected. The medical terminology centers around the amygdala and the parts of the brain responsible for human emotions.Footnote 1

Dr. Vogel reveals that she taught Harry and Dexter the code – based entirely on a scientific basis. Vogel worked with Harry to shape the code – there are videos showing Harry struggling with Dexter’s “clear psychopathic tendencies”. Vogel and Harry discuss the sheer inevitability of Dexter becoming a killer – Harry also trusted the science enough to believe his intuitions that this was the only way that Dexter was going to survive the way he was made. Interestingly, at the beginning of the season, she keeps reiterating to Dexter that he is “perfect” – exactly how a psychopath should be acting, and to embrace his biological self.

Dr. Vogel continuously compares him to the statistical baseline of psychopaths, and uses the phrase “people like you” often. She was keeping a journal on Dexter and never denied keeping notes for a book about him. There was a tension throughout the season between her treating or seeing Dexter as an individual versus simply viewing him as a psychopath. Either way, Dexter was an outsider by a medical and scientific standard.

Dexter: “I’m just trying to figure this out.”

Vogel: “You have a hard time admitting that you’re wrong but it’s alright. People like you have an inherent need to be right, to feel superior.”

Dexter: “You keep talking about me like I’m some kind of alternate species. Like I’m less than human.” (Ep. 2)

Dexter responds to her during the season that she sounds like a “Dr. Frankenstein”. This, of course, means Dexter would be the monster in the famed tale. But does this change how viewers interpret Dexter? On some level he has ultimately been only a case study even if Vogel cared about him.

Dexter: [internal] “Saxon killed his brother when he was only 14. Killed 7 more in the fire when he was 17. How many more since then? He’s lived in a dozen cities across two continents. Never been arrested. Never leaves a trace. Is he the perfect psychopath I once was?” (Ep. 10)

Viewers, over the course of the season, also learn that nearly all Vogel’s patients end up being reckless killers, even after treatment. And her son, Oliver, is a psychopath and similarly kills innocent people. Dexter’s other comparators (all male) are similarly unable to escape their fate. All meet their grisly end either at the hands of Dexter or the law. All the psychopaths in the season fit the fatalist argument that “you cannot escape your biology.”

Feelings/Emotions/Faking/Masks

Dr. Vogel focuses on the lack of empathy commonly attributed to psychopaths, and often mocks or demeans any of his expressions or statements of love and affection. Once Dr. Vogel begins to use these statements, Dexter also attempts, at a certain point during the season, to use the psychopathy as a defensive description about his life and emotional connection with others:

Deb: “You’re not even listening to me…You don’t understand. I’ve been trapped in a [expletive] fog…”

Dexter: “No, I don’t understand. Haven’t you heard anything she said? I’m stupid that way, my brain is limited.” (Ep. 5).

Nevertheless, Dexter’s plotline had him fooled; he never could truly read others. He was always going to be an experiment in the eyes of Dr. Vogel, she was continuously taking notes on him and his behavior in her study of psychopaths. He was conned at her use of a “spiritual mother” and her affection for him. She had years to reach out to Dexter, and had known for a very long time that Dexter was growing up, yet never reached out to him until she was in grave danger and needed his assistance. In particular, she needed his killing ability to save herself.

The beginning of the season also highlights this disparity between other characters in the show and Dexter as they contemplate and wrestle with human trauma. Deb quits the police department after killing LaGuerta to protect Dexter at the end of the last season. She goes out of town on a coke spree with a drug dealer whom she is supposed to follow and bring back as an assignment for her new job as a private investigator. She wrestles with the moral consequences of her actions that we never see Dexter contemplate. She ultimately suffers PTSD and attempts to confess killing LaGuerta. She finds out that her father killed himself because of Dexter and midway through the season attempts to kill both of them by making Dexter drive off the road. However, she saves him after watching him go underwater – she could not go through with the action. This is all in contrast with Dexter’s inability to show any remorse, gratitude, or any clear indication of emotion about aspects of his life.

Ironically, Dexter begins to lose control of his normally awkward quiet demeanor during this same time. He begins to act out: he choked a driver who cut him off; screamed that LaGuerta died “because she wouldn’t leave it alone”; yells at his 6-year-old son Harrison when he breaks a ceramic jug; and kills the drug dealer Deb’s been with. The juxtaposition is clear – while Deb goes through a mental spiral, Dexter loses being the “special” killer – he is becoming just a normal one. He acts out in rages, behaving like viewers would expect a “normal” killer to act. What is noticeable is that he begins to lose the sympathy of viewers (it is difficult to watch him yell aggressively at Harrison or choking the driver on the road). Yet none of his actions have any feelings or emotions – just pure anger.

And Dr. Vogel supports and codifies this lack of empathy in her discussions with Dexter. She discusses that, as a category, psychopaths feel nothing, and Dexter will be unable to sympathize with humans.

Vogel: “When a psychopath speaks about love, it doesn’t really mean the same thing as for typical people. So, what do you love about her?”

Dexter: “I don’t know. I love having steaks and beer with her, and until recently, the fact that she is always there for me. The way she looked up to me.”

Vogel: “But none of that is really about Deborah. It’s about what she does for you.”

Dexter: “So you’re saying I’m selfish?”

Vogel: “I’m not criticizing. Selfless love is hard enough for typical people. And for psychopaths it’s impossible.” (Ep. 3)

Dexter, however, by the end of the season tries to balk at this definition. He wants to be different than other psychopaths. He wants to have both worlds – hiding this psychopathic life and having a true family, full of feeling and love. He seems to be actively engaging in a relationship with Hannah, juxtaposed to the mask he put on with his previous wife Rita, and visually and internally seems to be genuine in his affection for her.

Hannah: “‘Be careful’, I know.”

Dexter: “Actually I was going to say I love you.”

Hannah: “I love you too.” (Ep. 9)

Dr. Vogel seems to sympathize with him, but is clear, scientifically, that this option is not possible for Dexter.

Vogel: “Over the time I’ve spent with you, I’ve come to realize that you’re not the perfect psychopath I thought you were. You have a depth of emotion I never thought possible.”

Dexter: “It’s true. I’ll find the brain surgeon and I’ll kill him. But once I do, I’m gonna focus on a life with Hannah.”

Vogel: “I think you misunderstood my point. Straddling two worlds as you are, it’s dangerous. Killers cannot have a full emotional life.”

Dexter: “I think you underestimate me.” (Ep 9).

For the series to end with Dexter accepting this fate and understanding that he can never truly love others, the fatalist argument reigns victorious. Dexter comes to the decision that he cannot escape the science – he believes that he would hurt Harrison and Hannah more creating a life with them than by faking his own death and ostracizing himself. He allows himself to actually live the life of a psychopath by ostracizing everything he “cares” about.

Standards/Codes/Right/Wrong/Moral Structures

As Dexter was growing up, his father Harry Morgan taught him “the code” to only kill individuals who “deserve it” and have escaped the law. This code encapsulates much of the morality vernacular that is used by the characters. We find out in the final season that Dr. Vogel, a specialist in psychopathy, created this code using scientific methods to help focus, not quash, Dexter’s “urges.” Dexter’s “morality” is lessened when Dr. Vogel claims to have just simply crafted it as an experiment to keep him out of prison or an institution. Science and biology were harnessed to protect Dexter, but he ultimately, at the end of the series, kills an innocent and ostracizes himself.

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)

Deb, the person who protects Dexter, and believes there is a human part of him to love, is ultimately left brain-dead at the hands of Dexter’s final victim. Dexter takes Deb off the respirator: she is his final kill. As a result, Dexter, in his last kill before faking his own death, kills an innocent. The Code is broken. The Code never truly helped Dexter, he ultimately had to face the fate he could not outrun. Interestingly, Dexter never killed an innocent until this point: he had planned on killing LaGuerta, but Deb stepped in and did so. Deb is the only innocent Dexter killed, making him realize he could not sidestep his fate as a psychopathic killer.

Finally, there is a point that is not often addressed. During the season, videotapes are found of Harry talking about Dexter’s kills decades ago, meaning if someone saw these videos that always have had the chance to be sent to jail with these records his entire life. Dr. Vogel shows them to Dexter in order to garner his help, but Dexter has lived his whole life with the incorrect belief he could have outrun the law. The introduction of Dr. Vogel unhinges everything Dexter knows about his world, and he ultimately is bound to his isolated fate.

Damage/Change/Birth- he ‘Became’ a Psychopath by Being ‘Damaged’

Vogel clearly summarizes the fatalist argument about the origin of Dexter’s killing tendencies early on in the season.

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: Scar Tissue)

Vogel uses explicit language that he was destined to be a killer – it was not an “if”, but a “when” he was going to begin to kill humans. The scientific perspective was focused more on focusing the consequences of his actions rather than attempting to change or perform remedial upstream measures. The only other option, in her mind, was an institution, put forward as a bleak and unsustainable option. Science’s fatalist grasp of Dexter’s situation is clear: all one can do is try and keep psychopaths out of jail, as there is no hope for them once tendencies are shown.

Vogel: “Don’t mean to. Don’t know how else to put it. I mean 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. Eventually we realized that hunting animals wasn’t going to satiate you, so we decided that you could be taught to kill other kinds of animals. People who truly deserve to die.”

…

Dexter: “You experimented on me… that’s what mothers do?”

Vogel: “I developed a framework for your survival. That’s what mothers do.”

Dexter: “You made me what I am.”

Vogel: “You’d have preferred an institution?” (Ep. 2)

Vogel uses jargon that indicates a beginning point of this behavior, but no ability to change its course. All she can do is protect him as he continues on a road she sees as unchangeable.

Dexter also indicates that he has internal conflict on whether it was the bloody scene of his mother’s murder, or the aggressive framework that Dr. Vogel created as exacerbating his killing tendencies. She calls herself his “spiritual mother,” but does not deny that witnessing his mother’s murder was the catalyst for his killing. While he struggles with this, he concludes that either way, this result and urge was unavoidable. It did not matter if it was the visual experience, that combined with being treated as, and considered, unchangeable, all led to the conclusion and fatalist outlook.

Free Will/Control/Urges – ‘can’t Help’, ‘Have to’

There is an entire subplot within the final Dexter season describing the fate of a young psychopath, Zach, that Dexter begins to mentor. Dexter plans on killing Zach, and nearly does once he has him on his killing table, but refrains because he hears Zach describe and highlight the same need to kill that he has described and fought his entire life. He explains the change in him to his representation of Harry:

Harry: “I taught you the Code. Now he’s learning it from you. And look at him. You used to feel like that after a kill.”

Dexter: “At peace. Life was so simple then.”

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)

Similar to Dexter’s description of the Darkness, Dexter claims to have out-smarted his fate as a killer. He has weaned himself off of the need to kill by loving his girlfriend Hannah, notably also a killer. Since he can be himself around her, he has lost the desire to kill.

But ultimately, Hannah cannot win. Dexter is chained to his fate. He chooses to not only reject the life with her and his son, but to let them believe he is dead, in order to be the self-proclaimed monster he believes he is. Dexter seemed to assert free will and control this season, while ultimately the fatalist approach to psychopathy is clearly shown. Dexter would never truly have control over the downstream effects of being a psychopath.

Salvation/Redemption/Heroism – Wanting to ‘return to humanity’

Dexter comes very close to his ultimate dream of salvation – having a family with Hannah, his girlfriend, and Harrison, his son, in Argentina, safe from the law. He chooses that route at first, as Hannah is wanted by the police, and must go abroad. Dexter could have saved himself, and preserved his lifestyle by letting her go, but he wants to have this idealistic human family structure.

He also attempts to counsel and mentor a young psychopath, Zach, who ends up getting killed by Dexter’s target victim. At one point, cleaning up a kill, Zach even calls Dexter “dude,” and Dexter responds like a father – “Do not ‘dude’ me.” Zach sits in the back seat behind Hannah and Dexter, and asks “Are we there yet?” The episode clearly marks this as a moment that perhaps Dexter could have a family, albeit a non-conventional one, but one that accepts him as a psychopath into society. However, this was soon thwarted by the death of Zach.

Dexter: “You know, what you’ve actually done is opened my eyes. Forced me to look at myself.”

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)

The juxtaposition of this scene to the car scene makes Dexter’s recognition that he cannot escape his fate that much more potent. The bright light he saw was overshadowed by the perpetual presence of the darkness. The fatalist argument again shines through – Dexter was unable to craft for himself an alternate path of redemption. He was chained to his solitary fate of outsider.

Finally, when he kills Saxon in “self-defense,” his anger and repressed monster side of him is videotaped on the jail cell camera. The world’s final images of him before his faked death is that of Dexter acting like the quintessential “psychopath” and killer – not the human he has wanted to become.

Darkness/Alterego/Passenger/Wolf

There are hardly any references to the “dark passenger,” Dexter’s own description of his psychopathic tendencies throughout the series, at all this season. This is quite significant when juxtaposed to other seasons. In the beginning of this final season, Dexter argues that whether he kills or not is entirely in his control, and there is no alter ego in his life. However, by the end of the season, he tries to leave behind his final “victim,” and hands him over to Deb and the police. Deb ends up brain-dead, and Dexter realizes that it is entirely his fault, and that he has given himself a false sense of hope of out-running his fate.

The strength of his downfall is highlighted by the juxtaposition of Dexter’s outlook on life. Right before he leaves for Argentina, he believes he has outsmarted Dr. Vogel and that he can be a psychopath and have an emotionally full life with his family. This is ripped from him as he lets Deb off the ventilator, and ostracizes himself: a fate worse than death.

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)

Dexter sees his future as bright before Deb dies. But this statement is right before Dexter realizes he cannot escape his fate at the hands of his brain-dead sister. He cannot fly to Argentina with Hannah and Harrison. The bright light he saw was overshadowed by the perpetual presence of the darkness. While there were few codes this season with the Dark Passenger, the series ends with him closing his eyes to entire blackness. The Dark Passenger never left his side, and the series ends with it eclipsing his life. The darkness ultimately prevails over any chance of a “human” life.

Conclusion

This paper focuses on the ways in which biological influences to psychopathy are thematically portrayed in the eighth and final season of Dexter to describe Dexter’s psychopathy, particularly focusing on fatalism and the inevitability of succumbing to one’s “biological self.” As lay theories of psychopathy are thought to originate from the media’s conceptualization of the disorder (Furnham et al., 2009; Hesse, 2009; Keesler, 2013), such thematic portrayals serve to potential affect lay understandings of psychopathy, which may correspondingly create implications for the criminal justice system in several areas as a modern psychopathy-related “CSI Effect” that illuminates the “truth” of why psychopaths exhibit such behavior and what should be done about it.

Particularly, media portrayals of the behaviors and characteristics of psychopathy as biologically “inevitable” because such diagnosed individuals cannot “escape their biology” may affect lay perceptions of punishment in sentencing contexts. As described above, several of the themes in the eighth season of Dexter focus on Dexter’s psychopathic behavior, violence and lack of emotional capacity being expected or unavoidable because he is being true to his “biological self” and meeting his “biological fate.” Dr. Vogel continually highlights this through the season, with a “not if, but when” mentality when it comes to Dexter and his psychopathic behavior because his brain is inherently limited. These messages on “biological fatalism” could very well effect views on if and how traditional punishments should be used in response to psychopathic offending, providing a psychopathy-related “CSI Effect” in two main areas.

First, such portrayals may reinforce existing thoughts that psychopaths are less able to associate their actions with related punishment, and therefore, will not be deterred from offending by existing punishments in the criminal justice system (e.g. Fowles, 1980; Piquero, 2017). Since the behaviors of psychopaths like Dexter are portrayed to be unavoidable or unable to be stopped because of the disorder’s biological influences, existing punishments for psychopathic offenders may be thought to be both ineffective and also unable to contain the dangerousness that psychopaths represent (Aharoni, Weintraub, & Fridlund, 2007; Umbach et al., 2015). The dangerousness and violence associated with psychopathy have been known to affect juror perceptions and support for greater punishment for offenders with the disorder, particularly related to the want for incapacitation in order to protect public safety (Lyon & Ogloff, 2000; Marshall et al., 2017; Thi, 2016). As many studies have found that perceptions of evilness, “cold bloodedness,” and remorselessness of offenders with psychopathy predict more punitive sentencing outcomes (e.g. Costanzo & Peterson, 1994; Cox et al., 2013; Cox et al., 2016; Sundby, 1997), portrayals of psychopaths’ insensitivity to punishment due to their biological differences may lead to support for even more significant punitive outcomes to contain psychopathic behavior out of fear.

Second, such representations of psychopaths’ brains being inherently “limited” when it comes to acting morally or ethically also may affect lay views on moral responsibility, and therefore, punishment. Indeed, some scholars have argued that the known neural deficits associated with psychopathy render such individuals incapable of understanding and acting according to moral reasons, and therefore, unable to formulate moral responsibility for their actions and understanding the moral principles of criminal law (Levy, 2007; Godman & Jefferson, 2017). Therefore, as our system of punishment is rendered based on moral blameworthiness, it is possible that lay perceptions of whether psychopaths like Dexter are morally responsible for their actions and should be punished could be affected. As such, psychopathic behavior may be excused from being punished (Godman & Jefferson, 2017).

In relation to criminal justice, these two messages on the “biological fatalism” of psychopathy could potentially act as both aggravators or mitigators during sentencing contexts involving psychopathy in which members of the lay public act as the decisionmakers, particularly in capital cases and in the selected states still exercising juror sentencing for felonies (Fabian, 2010; Umbach et al., 2015). Indeed, information on brain science related to psychopathy is often described as a “double-edged” sword in sentencing, meaning evidence can be seen as either a mitigator or aggravator when determining level of responsibility and corresponding sentence for offenders in court (Denno, 2015). Understanding these two messages is especially important as evidence surrounding psychopathy has been increasingly presented and considered in criminal court contexts in the last 10 years (DeMatteo et al., 2014),

The first message regarding “biological fatalism” that psychopaths’ biology renders them less able to associate their actions with related punishment, and therefore, will not be deterred from offending by existing punishments in the criminal justice system may be viewed as an aggravator to punishment in sentencing contexts; thus, it may be thought that a psychopathic individual like Dexter is unchangeable due to the biological abnormalities and accordingly inevitably dangerous and likely to recidivate (Umbach et al., 2015). This may potentially increase support for utilitarian punishments aimed at the safety of the community, as one would be found inherently dangerous, untreatable, and therefore should be incapacitated or regulated for the welfare of the public (Aspinwall et al., 2012). Further, it may increase support for less traditional punishments that are not currently in use in criminal contexts to contain the dangerousness of psychopaths, such as involuntary civil commitment (Glenn & Raine, 2009).

The second message regarding “biological fatalism” that psychopaths’ brains are inherently “limited” when it comes to moral responsibility, and therefore, such individuals may not warrant punishment may be viewed as an mitigator to punishment in sentencing contexts; thus, this may reinforce existing notions that psychopathic behavior is out of the psychopath’s control due to his biological abnormalities (Monterosso, Royzman, & Schwartz, 2005). This may potentially reduce support for punishments defined as retributive in nature, such as the death penalty; a psychopath like Dexter might be perceived to be in less control of his behavior because of his biology and, therefore, less morally culpable for his corresponding actions. As mentioned above, indeed some existing research has found that neuroscience evidence on psychopathy reduces judgments of responsibility and support for punishment (Aspinwall et al., 2012; Saks et al., 2014).

Further, as judges are thought to exhibit similar types of lay understandings of psychopathy as the general public (Chauhan et al., 2007), these two messages on “biological fatalism” may not just affect sentencing contexts involving the lay public and their perceptions of psychopathy, but also may affect judicial decision-making in sentencing contexts related to either mitigating or aggravating to punishment (Moustapha, 2015). Thus, such portrayals may be influential across the majority of sentencing contexts. As.

Finally, although there has been debate on the ability of psychopathy to be effectively treated, portrayals focusing on the “biological fatalism” associated with psychopathy likely engender pessimism and diminish support by the public for rehabilitative options for psychopathic offenders. Currently, there is limited evidence that current treatment interventions for psychopathy are successful (Hilton, Harris, & Rice, 2006; Skeem et al., 2011). However, some psychopathy researchers have voiced optimism on the likelihood that neuroscience research on psychopathy may be able to help aid in creating effective treatments for psychopathy in the future (Glenn & Raine, 2009). As such, media representations of the disorder as biologically fixed, inevitable, and fatalistic, such as those in Dexter, and particularly labelling the disorder as a “dark passenger” that an individual must carry for good.

In conclusion, the eighth and final season of Dexter focuses on using biological influences to describe Dexter’s psychopathy, with different qualitative themes coalescing to portray psychopathy as inevitable, succumbing to one’s “biological self,” and a product of “biological fatalism.” As discussed, such thematic portrayals serve to potential affect lay understandings of psychopathy and, correspondingly, specific implications for the criminal justice system. Future research should focus on other media portrayals of psychopathy as a biologically influenced disorder and how it both compares to those in Dexter, as well as how it is both similar and different to the existing literature on psychopathy.