Introduction
Society has a fascination with violence, and a wealth of literature is currently available on the topic (Isser & Schwartz, 2008). But while the topic of men-perpetrated violence and murder has been extensively covered in current literature, the coverage of female-perpetrated violence is habitually discriminatory and piecemeal and gravitates towards reflecting the obsessions of a particular period in history rather than major social trends (Pretorius & Botha, 2009).
A popular perspective in the past based its evaluations of female criminality on the physiological and psychological nature of women (Keetley, 2008), making it easy to distinguish women who could kill and those who could not. The truth, however, is that many factors may lead a woman to turn into killing and evaluating the physiological and psychological nature of women alone to determine criminal intentions is shallow as demonstrated by current literature (Adinkrah, 2007; Kruttschnitt, 2008 ). This paper aims to conduct a comprehensive literature review on some of the causes that make women become murderers.
Due to their gender roles, society expects women to be more caring, tender, loving, and understanding than men. However, there has been a sustained increase in the number of women who commit violent crimes, including murder, triggering the concerned stakeholders into a spin as they attempt to understand the increase in criminality among women.
In the decade of the 1970s, an upsurge in criminal behavior among women led to an evaluation of whether or not the women’s feminist and liberation movements had played a role, but studies later revealed that, in fact, female criminal offenders were largely anti-feminist (Putkonen et al., 2008). A meta-analysis of 14 studies on women violence done by Honkatukia (2005) also found no substantial evidence linking the feminist and liberation movements to a rise in the share of violent offending and homicide perpetrated by women (Downing, 2009).
Country-specific statistics indeed point out that cases of women engaging in criminal behavior and killing are on the increase globally. Putkonen et al (2008) note that cases of “…aggravated assaults by women [in the USA] increased by 14% between 1994 and 2003…In Finland, the proportion of female arrestees for assaults increased from 7% to 15% between 1985 and 2004” (p. 269). Women account for approximately 10% of reported homicides in many western countries.
The rates for homicides perpetrated by women in the US, UK, Sweden, and Finland stands at between 10% and 11%, and it is imperative to note that the number of women who commit homicides and other forms of murders has not followed the documented changes among male offenders (Putkonen et al., 2008). This implies that the causative factors and motivations behind killing may be intrinsically diverse among the two categories of offenders.
Theories Explaining Why Women Kill
A variety of theories have been advanced by criminologists and researchers to explain why women murder. It is imperative to note that although there have been few reported cases of women serial killers (Downing, 2009), a large proportion of women killers are known to engage in homicides, such as the killing of an intimate partner, neonaticide, infanticide, and filicide (Isser & Schwartz, 2008). This assertion implies that many murders committed by women involve a close family member, such as the husband, children or the newborn. In this respect, the theories discussed below will look into the issue of women murderers from this perspective though the motivations behind women serial killers will also be evaluated.
The Liberation Theory
According to Isser & Schwartz (2008), “…liberation theorists emphasize that new equalities of the sexes have led to greater violence on the part of girls” (p. 578). Greatly oriented towards the feminist movement, the liberation theorists also argue that the current educational practices have played a critical role in encouraging women to engage more seriously in various tasks that were traditionally reserved for the ‘aggressive’ men.
This theory has been used to explain the sudden increase of women engaging in more serious crimes that were predominantly perpetrated by men. The theory assumes that the equality of sexes has led women to exhibit and display violent criminal behavior as they interact with factors within the environment that predisposes them to kill (Weizmann-Henelius et al., 2006). For example, we have witnessed cases of women who kill their newborns for the reason that their intimate partners have refused to share responsibility in the upbringing of the child. Criminologists and psychologists have associated this type of killing with the urge to display liberation on the part of the woman (Xingzhong, 2007). Consequently, the need to display liberation and be at par with men causes women to kill.
The Oppression Approach
The groundwork for this approach is based on the fact that patriarchal dominance within the home or community pushes women into committing crime principally through “…victimization (abuse), subordinate roles (I did it for love), or economic inequality (marginal or survival necessity)” (Isser & Schwartz, 2008, p. 578). This approach has found wide acceptance for propagating some of the leading factors that cause women to kill.
According to Pretorius & Botha (2009), women who kill their intimate male partners often have gone through many years of violence and abuse at the hands of the partners to a point where they perceive their lives to be in great danger if they do not eliminate the partner. In many instances, such women exhaust all sources of obtaining assistance and have fewer resources available to them, thus deciding to take matters into their own hands and commit murder (Frei et al., 2006). The killing is consequentially deemed as an act of self-defense against the oppressive partner.
Studies have confirmed that women who murder due to exceedingly oppressive or violent environments often do it to close relatives in the immediate family or the extended family (Isser & Schwartz, 2008).
The oppression approach also points to the ongoing struggle between the sexes for control, resources, supremacy, and opportunity. The oppression approach to murder derives much support from a number of studies showing that many women convicted of violent crimes, including murder, manslaughter, and assault, were themselves the victims of prolonged abuse occurring within the family context or at the hands of their intimate partners (Jones, 2008). However, the oppression approach to explaining why women commit murder has received a fair level of criticism from feminists on the account that it deprives women of their independence and denies their anger and other emotional responses.
The Situational/Contextual Model
According to Isser & Schwartz (2008), “…the situational or contextual approach rests upon the depiction of the social, cultural, economic, and political environments” (p. 579). The approach correlates a multiplicity of potent factors, such as poverty, educational deprivation, alcoholism and drug use and dependence, emotional breakdown or stultification generated by poor health, lack of economic opportunities, stereotypical expectations, financial dependence, and parental neglect, with an enhanced predisposition for a woman to engage in murder and other criminal behaviors (Isser & Schwartz, 2008; Kalichman, 1988). Some of these factors are known to occasion or reinforce psychopathic behaviors that only serve to enhance the chances of committing murder.
Researchers have drawn a positive correlation between the high incidences of homicides reported in Finland with the country’s drinking culture (Putkonen et al., 2008). In one study done by Herttua et al (2007) and quoted extensively by Putkonen et al (2008), it was revealed that almost half of the country’s female homicide perpetrators were alcohol abusers, and 49% were either unemployed or survived on early retirement pension.
A further 28% of the female offenders had previously been convicted of heinous crimes. Another cross-cultural study in 2001 found a strong correlation between alcohol sales and consumption patterns on the one hand and increasing cases of homicide in Finland on the other. It should be noted that Finland is one of the more economically stable nations, and one in which gender parity is more advanced, thus the liberation theory can also be used to explain the high incidences of homicide being perpetrated by women in the country.
The Biological Theory
Though this theory has been used to explain why women kill their newborns, it continues to be hotly debated and contested due to its somehow abstract notions. The theory was first postulated in 1993 by Carol Gilligan, who argued that men and women are intrinsically different (Isser & Schwartz, 2008). As opposed to men, women are more nurturing and caring, not to mention that they attempt to seek and sustain emotional and personal bonds with their own and others more than men do. The theory suggests that women’s psychological needs and behavior supported by the roles outlined in society are genetically imprinted.
As such, “…biological and reproductive differences apply especially in those crimes centered around birth and the hormone production that abets proclivity to violent emotional outbursts” (Isser & Schwartz, 2008, p. 579). Consequently, this model argues that some biological, reproductive, and hormonal variations that are unique to women drive them into committing acts of neonaticide (killing the baby on its day of birth), infanticide (killing of a child up to the age of one year), and filicide (the killing of a child aged one year or older). The theory further suggests that women are less liable than men when they engage in a commission of violence or other offending behavior as these tend to be one-time episodes with minimal chances of recidivism.
Applying Theory to Practice
So far the available literature and data indicate there is no single theory or principle that can fully capture the causative factors that drive women to kill (Taylor, 2008). On most occasions, more than one model is used to explain the aberrant actions and behavior of women. As Issar & Swartz (2008) points out, the complexity of motive and emotional attachments are apparent and have to a larger extent led to challenges involved in defining and defending women’s actions, behaviors and intents. In equal measure, Strueber et al (2007) argue that violent behavior in men and women never erupts from a single cause; on the contrary, it appears to erupt from an intricate maze of interrelated factors, some genetic and others environmental.
The behavioral approach has won the admiration of many criminologists and researchers, who argue that some behavior tendencies such as aggression, traumatic childhood, antisocial behavior, and other depressing experiences can objectively pass as some of the causes why women commit murder (Strueber et al., 2007; Taylor, 2008). According to the authors, women are not necessarily less violent as was largely assumed a couple of decades ago; rather, they are known to engage in more indirect, clandestine aggression as opposed to men who tend to gravitate towards instantaneous, outward physical aggression.
Acocella (2010) argues that the indirect aggressive strategies employed by many women to kill present challenges to crime investigators since it becomes hard to identify the motive behind the killing in the absence of a confession by the perpetrator. However, these behavioral factors can fit in the situational or contextual model to explain some of the causes that trigger women to murder.
The behavioral approach goes hand in hand with emotional control. There is compelling evidence that offers ground to the notion that deficits in emotional control may indeed fail to prevent impulsive aggressive offenders from acting (Strueber et al., 2007; Wolfe, 2009). As such, it can be safely argued that some women kill due to a high-level lack of emotional control. Some of the factors discussed in the situational or contextual model, such as alcoholism and drug dependence, poverty, poor health, and stereotypical expectations (Isser & Schwartz, 2008), are known to cause deficiencies in emotional control, which is ostensibly associated with offending behavior. A number of studies have found that individuals with deficient emotional control do not take time to think through the ramifications of their actions and behaviors (Keetley, 2008).
It should be noted that abnormalities occurring in the frontal cortex and the limbic system may occasion deficiencies in emotional control that fail to suppress impulsive individuals from acting out their aggression (Strueber et al., 2007). This assertion can find support from the biological theory discussed elsewhere in this paper. Consequently, the roles of deficient emotional control and behavioral challenges in causing women to kill become more apparent.
In line with the oppression approach, the self-defense doctrine and the battered woman syndrome can be used to explain why women kill. According to Terrance & Matheson (2003), “…self-defense is premised on the principle that one who is unlawfully attacked by another should be able to take reasonable steps to defend him/herself” (p. 37). When an individual is faced with an imminent danger of death or risk of grievous bodily harm, he or she is legally sanctioned to act in self-defense, and such action may result in the death of the aggravating party. The oppression approach rightly points out that the family setup may disintegrate due to forces of anarchy and aggression perpetrated by the father figure towards the woman and her children (Isser & Schwartz, 2008; Nikunen, 2006).
Confrontations and fights in such families are daily routines and, in extreme circumstances, the male partner may withhold financial assistance to punish the wife for perceived wrongs. The battering may worsen with time, forcing the woman to act in self-defense in the absence of any other form of assistance to calm the situation, in the process intentionally or unintentionally killing the intimate partner. Indeed, studies demonstrate that around 68.5% of wife-perpetuated homicides involving an intimate partner occur when women stand up to fight the oppression and aggression within the family context (Currie, 1995).
However, many women who use the self-defense doctrine to kill find themselves on the wrong side of the law since the “…doctrine fails to account for the ongoing relationship between the battered woman and her partner, the cumulative effects of repeated violence, the inability to find safe refuge outside of the home, and the ability to predict violence in the future” (Terrance & Matheson, 2003, p. 38). Critics have also faulted the legal aspects of the doctrine for being male-oriented and relying on physical attributes to demonstrate the essence of the imminent danger.
Formulated by Walker (1979), the battered woman syndrome (BWS) gains its strength from two major constructs, namely “…the theory of learned helplessness and the cycle theory of violence” (Terrance & Matheson, 2003, p. 38). Through recurring episodes of physical and psychological abuse by the male partner, the battered woman comes to be aware of her incapacity to control the abuse. Accordingly, her motivation to escape from repeated abuse or to prevent future abuse is considerably curtailed (Kruttschnitt et al., 2008). As the cycle of abuse persists to entrench itself within the relationship, the battered woman becomes sensitized to prompts signaling abusive behavior. It is at this juncture that the victim may, with or without premeditation, act either in self-defense or otherwise to kill the partner.
Psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder have often been used by clinicians, psychologists, and criminologists to understand the behavior of a small proportion of people who seem to be incorrigibly involved in offending behavior that is not only unlawful, but causes great harm to others (Warren & South, 2006; Van Wormer, 2007 ). Studies have revealed that some women, particularly those oriented to serial killing, have known psychopathic and antisocial personality disorders (Acocella, 2010; Ludmer, 2001; Simons, 2009).
Some of the common features associated with the two disorders include emotional instability, superficial charm, unreliability, insincerity, social drift, sparse cognitive functions, failure to learn from experience, deficient affective reactions, unresponsive interpersonal relationships, anomalies in personality, impersonal sexual relationships, and failed suicide attempts, among others (Warren & South, 2006; Nikunen, 2006). However, these tendencies do not degenerate to outright insanity and, therefore, it can be safely argued that psychopathic women who engage in murder are themselves not insane.
Women demonstrating psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder have also exhibited “…chronic patterns of lying, stealing, truancy, and a surprising degree of sexual promiscuity untainted by any sense of immorality or apparent concern about pregnancy” (Warren & South, 2006, p. 3). As a direct consequence of their behavior tendencies, such women end up with repeat pregnancies but kill the newborn due to their pathological egocentricity and an entrenched capacity to show love and care to anyone else apart from themselves (Ainslay, 2000; Taylor, 2008). According to Frei et al (2006), repeat offenders are more likely to graduate into the serial killing. Overall, psychopathic women and others exhibiting antisocial personality disorder are more likely to engage in murder than normal women would do when faced when with similar situations (Wolfe, 2009).
Conclusion
The discussion has effectively laid bare the causations of women who murder. Various theories, including the liberation theory, the oppression approach, the situational/contextual model, and the biological theory, have been extensively discussed to demonstrate how a multiplicity of genetic, psychological, behavioral, and environmental factors causes women to commit murder (Adinkrah, 2007).
It has also been revealed that these factors, which includes aggression, traumatic childhood experiences, deficient frontal lobe cortex, antisocial behavior, deficient emotional control, psychopathy, and antisocial personality disorder, aggravate or combine with others to create a fertile ground for women to commit murder (Weizmann-Henelius, 2006; Van der Dennen, 2005).
The self-defense doctrine and the battered woman syndrome have been discussed at length, and their implications in encouraging murder among women are well delineated. As such, the immediate task is for all stakeholders to develop and implement mechanisms that will aid in the identification of these causative factors before they spill out of control. Effective treatment methodologies also need to be developed to assist the women in need of such services. Lastly, families need to be educated on how to curtail incidences that may lead to spousal abuse. As a countermeasure, the self-defense doctrine needs to be aligned with the needs of battered women so that justice is achieved when such mothers are accused of killing their abusive partners in self-defense.
Reference List
Acocella, J. (2010). Queen of crime. New Yorker, 86(24), 82-88.
Adinkrah, M. (2007). Women who kill their husbands: Mariticides in contemporary Ghana. Aggressive Behavior, 33(6), 526-536.
Ainsley, J.N. (2000). “Some mysterious agency”: Women, violent crime, and the insanity acquittal in the Victorian courtroom. Canadian Journal of History, 35(1).
Attink, H. (2007). “I did not want to face the shame of exposure”: Gender ideologies and child murder in post-emancipation Jamaica. Journal of Social History, 41(2), 355-387.
Currie, S. (1995). Justice for women who kill in self-defense. Social Alternatives, 14(1), 31-35.
Downing, L. (2009). Murder in the feminine: Marie Lafarge and the Sexualization of the nineteenth-century criminal woman. South African Journal of Psychology, 39(2), 211-241.
Frei, A., Vollm, B., Graf, M., & Dittmann, V. (2006). Female serial killing: Review & case report. Criminal Behavior & Mental Health, 16(3), 167-176.
Isser, N.K., & Schwartz, L.L. (2008). Engendered homicide. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 36(4), 577-607.
Jones, D. (2008). Human behavior: Killer instincts. Nature, 451(7178), 512-515.
Kalichman, S.C. (1988). MMPI profiles of women and men convicted of domestic homicide. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(6), 847-853.
Keetley, D. (2008). From anger to jealousy: Explaining domestic homicide in Antebellum America. Journal of Social History, 42(2), 269-297.
Kruttschnitt, C., Gartner, R., & Husseman, J. (2008). Female violent offenders: Moral panics or more serious offenders. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41(1), 9-35.
Ludmer, J. (2001). Women who kill (part 2). Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies, 10(3), 279-290.
Nikunen, M. (2006). Parenthood in murder-suicide news: Idealized fathers & murderous mums. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology & Crime Prevention, 7(2), 164-184.
Pretorius, H.G., & Botha, S.A (2009). The cycle of violence and abuse in women who kill an intimate male partner: A biographical profile. South African Journal of Psychology, 39(2), 242-252.
Putkonen, H., Weizmann-Henelius, G., Lindberg, N., Nina, R., & Tuija, H.H. (2008). Changes over time in homicides by women: A register-based study comparing female offenders from 1982 to 1992 and 1993 to 2005. Criminal Behavior & Mental Health, 18(5), 268-278.
Simmons, C. (2009). Why mothers kill. Psychology Today, 42(4), 26-26.
Strueber, D., Lueck, M., & Roth, G. (2007). The violent brain. Scientific American Mind, 17(6), 20-27.
Taylor, R.J. (2008). Psychosis & Violence: Stories, fears, & reality. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 53(10), 647-659.
Terrance, C, & Matheson, K. (2003). Undermining reasonableness: Expert testimony in a case involving a battered woman who kills. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27(1), 37-45.
Van der Dennen, J.M.G. (2005). The murderer next door: Why the mind is designed to kill. Politics & the Life Sciences, 24(1/2), 76-86.
Van Wormer, K. (2007). Why so many murder-suicides? USA Today Magazine, 135(2742), 62-64.
Warren, J.I., & South, S.C. (2006). Comparing the constructs of antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy in a sample of incarcerated women. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 24(1), 1-20.
Weizmann-Henelius, G., Ilonen, T., Viemero, V., & Eronen, M. (2006). A comparison of selected Rorschach variables of violent female offenders and female non-offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 24(2), 199-213.
Wolfe, R.M.E. (2009). Woman, tyrant, mother, murderess: An exploration of the mythic character of Clytemnestra in all her forms. Women’s Studies, 38(6), 692-719.
Xingzhong, S. (1993). A survey of 217 women murderers. Chinese Education & Society, 26(4), 7-7.