I don't find the topic frightening but the authors "breathtaking callousness" in deciding who has no conscience, and her basis for this conclusion.

Stout states facts without basis. This would not be permitted in a high school essay.

She does not define terms she uses so frequently: "moral" , "decent", "good". Her definition of Sociopath appears to be anyone who acts in discord with accepted societal standard

She refers to an undefined time period when "life was hard" and children had to obey, when life got easier children could think for themselves and this was a "breeding ground for today's sociopaths"

Ms. Stout may be surprised to find out that we are as a society kinder to each other and less violent than at any time in history. The fact that we are appalled by violence, says much.

Perhaps there were fewer sociopaths as she's defined them, because cruel behavior was not considered an aberration. In fact, it was sport. Witch burning, bringing lunch to watch someone be fed to the lions, lynching, bear baiting, public hangings, was not considered anti-social. Therefore.. fewer antisocial people existed..

These children who were able to think for themselves did break laws, and those broken laws eventually gave African Americans equal rights under the law, gained women the vote, outlawed animal torture as entertainment.

Those law breakers were considered at the time to be "anti social", a threat to the good and decent law abiding folk..

Also ignored are mental illnesses which can cause people to act in heinous ways, frequently with much regret. Stout finds it her place however to decide who has "Absolutely no conscience" or "Absolutely no remorse" she in effect decides who is "human" and who is not. And according to what she has written, she needs nothing more than one of her clients sides of the story to decide this.

It makes me glad we no longer live in a time where one can have a neigbour burned at the stake simply by saying she's a witch.

Stouts unfounded statements, her "absolutism" has no place in psychology, or study of human behaviour. The superficial and treatment of a complex subject is an offense to anyone with the most rudimentary critical thinking skills. Unfortunately
I think it will encourage people to use the term and it's inherent judgement far too casually.