[xx101010]

You have a point about their background, and maybe a point about their leaning towards "pure nurtue" (as in 'nurture versus nature'), though this is actually not said. I am not aware of anyone who does lean pure nurture. If they do, that is obviously in correct. But that also does not mean that there is a label "psychopath" that is anywhere taken seriously. "Sociopath" has some value. "Psychopath" has a little, in terms of slang for impact.

The later term is far, far too wide, though, to be of much material use for anyone, be they in security or social work or therapy or anywhere.

Trying to argue pure nature or pure nurture is probably, in general, a very bad idea. Usually, however, it is true, there are very specific events in aggressively criminal individual's background which are noteworthy to help understand 'who they are'.

It is reasonably best to actually be "sociopathic" or lacking emotional bias when dealing with such analysis. Just like how doctors go, "Okay, wound, fix", and non-doctors get grossed out.

They are blinded by their own overcoming emotionality. Emotion can be great for communication, but it can also get in the way and be entirely counter productive.