I knew a medical professional who had to deal with a diagnosed, high-functioning (successful entrepreneur in a "respected" line of business) psychopath in a situation having nothing to do with psychopathy (routine physical ailment). Professionals at the institution were afraid of interacting with the psychopath, out of fear of being sued -- hence my obfuscation of the story. The psychopath very well knew that she/he was a psychopath, but saw nothing wrong with that. There were multiple (more than two) divorces, huge history of litigation (including "ambulance chasing", etc...)

There's no question that non-psychopaths are capable of terrible and even predatory behavior (and certainly multiple divorces and frivolous litigation), the difference is shame, and personally recognizing that there's something wrong with the behavior. This is different from being aware that society sees their behavior as wrong or hurtful and then acting in a way as not minimize harms inflicted by society's punishments (e.g., something akin to what was espoused by the Thrasymachus character in Plato's Republic or -- even more ominously and dangerously -- doctrine of legal positivism).

The latter leads to a very sad point that is relevant to those designing anti-abuse systems of various kinds: anti-abuse systems can also be misused as means of abuse by the sufficiently unscrupulous, Machiavellian, and especially psychopathic (and so can the reaction to this abuse...)