2nd Year Undergraduate Essay
Joanna Dennehy is the third woman in British history to receive a life imprisonment sentence, after killing 3 men in March 2013 and attempting to kill several others (Keenan, 2014). Dennehy was diagnosed with psychopathic anti-social personality disorder after a stunt in prison a year she began killing (Dodd, 2014), which has led many to speculate that a psychiatric explanation for her crimes focusing on psychopathy would be most fitting (Morris, 2014). At age 16, Dennehy moved out from her familial home with her partner John Treanor after frequent attempts at running away, and had two children (Morris, 2014). Treanor left Dennehy in 2009 and took the children with him (Morris, 2014), giving rise to a developmental explanation of her extreme behaviour given the lack of attachment to her relatives that may have skewed her internal models. However, it is hard to ignore the fact that Dennehy is a female in a patriarchal society and therefore feminist explanations have strong credence, especially as all her victims were male. An integrated approach of all three theoretical perspectives therefore would be the most fitting and explain the most of her abnormal behaviour.
Despite supposedly having a ‘normal’ childhood, Dennehy’s frequent attempts at running away in her teens, estrangement from her parents, and claimed childhood abuse (Morris, 2014) give rise to a developmental explanation for her crimes. Bowbly (1973, 1980) theorised for example that internal working models, such as mental representations and worthiness of self, are based on parental attachment in childhood. Fonagy and Target (1997) followed this line of thought and highlighted in their subsequent model that that a lack of secure attachment can lead to severe problems with self-organisation, and the ability to mentalise and understand the consequences of behaviour. They therefore argued that individuals with poor parental attachment in childhood will struggle to maintain healthy relationships. This seems to reflect Dennehy’s adolescence, with her frequent attempts at running away from home when she was 15 and moving out permanently when she was 16 (Morris, 2014). Also, when her partner John Treanor left her in 2009, he claimed that she left the family for weeks at a time and didn’t seem to be bothered for her children (Morris, 2014), suggesting again a lack of attachment and an inability to maintain relationships. Consequently, given that there was a significant lack of meaningful attachments in Dennehy’s life, it would be somewhat logical to conclude that Dennehy had skewed internal working models, due to her seemingly lack of secure attachment with her parents (Morris, 2014). Making the leap to criminality, insecure attachment styles have frequently been cited as a significant contributor to violent offending behaviours (Levinson & Fonagy, 2004; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), perhaps because impaired reflective functioning removes the barrier that would normally inhibit offending (Levinson & Fonagy, 2014.) Thus, parental attachment theory would be a valid explanation of Dennehy’s predisposition to violent offending.
However, attachment theory has several downfalls. Firstly, attachment theory struggles to explain what triggered Dennehy’s offences- as ultimately, not every insecurely attached child becomes a serial murderer, so it cannot be attachment alone that explains Dennehy’s actions (Ratip, 2013). Furthermore, a lot of the behaviours that could be explained by attachment theory could also be through a psychiatric explanation, which would be based on a diagnosis and not speculation surrounding Dennehy’s possible attachment style. Although, attachment theory has previously been put forward as an explanation for other female serial killers’ behaviours, such as in the case of Aileen Wuornos. Arrigo and Griffin (2004) put forward for example, that Wuornos’ abusive childhood resulted in an inability to trust caregivers and altered internal models of relationships ultimately led to violence. This argument would therefore support a similar rationale for Dennehy’s actions. Nevertheless, trying to apply this same logic to Dennehy is limited, as the abuse Wuornos experienced in childhood is heavily recorded and established, and therefore suggesting that she was insecurely attached is not a great leap. Whereas Dennehy’s claims of experiencing childhood abuse have never been confirmed and speculation on her parental attachment type is conjecture (Morris, 2014) based around her adolescent behaviour. Still, a meta-analysis of 9 studies looking at attachment style in violent offenders by Ratip (2003) found that the majority of studies concluded that insecure attachment was heavily prevalent in the offending population. In particular, one study found that 97% of violent offenders were insecurely attached (Ward, Hudson, & Marshall, 1996). This level of connection between violent offending and insecure attachment cannot be ignored, especially given Dennehy’s issues with her parents and seeming inability to maintain a healthy relationship. Therefore, the developmental perspective does have some merit in explaining Dennehy’s serial killings but needs more evidence from her childhood to be put forward as the strongest explanation.
Arguably a stronger explanation of Dennehy’s behaviour comes from a psychiatric perspective. As previously mentioned, given Dennehy’s diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder approximately a year before she began killing (Morris, 2014), it would be logical to suggest psychopathy (which although not synonymous with antisocial personality disorder, have a huge overlap) as a possible explanation for her extreme behaviour. The connection between psychiatric problems and serial killing has long been established, particularly with psychopathy (Boduszek, Debowska, Dhingra, & DeLisi, 2016.) The most current model of psychopathy from Boduszek, Debowska, Dhingra, & DeLisi (2016) suggests that egocentricity, manipulation, cognitive responsiveness and affective responsiveness are the key factors in psychopathy. These factors have been refined and altered from the infamous model of psychopathy proposed by Hare (1991, 2016) which could not be used in non-forensic populations accurately (Debowska et al., 2016) and was subsequently redeveloped. Dennehy’s diagnosis suggests that she was psychopathic, and so does aspects of her crime, such as the manipulation of accomplices and showing a young girl the corpse of her victim (Morris, 2014.) There is a well-developed link between psychopathy and murder, specifically focusing on manipulation and lack of empathy (Gavin, 2019). Fundamentally, a lack of empathy and increased interpersonal manipulation goes hand in hand with the willingness and ability to commit crime (Gavin, 2014), and several studies have shown that violent criminals are more likely to have higher psychopathy scores (Boduszek, Debowska, & Willmott, 2017). Even without the fact that Dennehy was diagnosed with a psychopathic disorder, there is an abundance of evidence of her manipulation and lack of empathy- seen in her luring text messages to her first victim Lukasz Slaboszewski and lack of remorse on the stand (Dodd, 2014.) After her capture, Dennehy was also diagnosed with sadism paraphilia (Morris, 2014) which has high co-morbidity levels with psychopathy (Kirsch & Becker, 2007) and further corroborates a psychiatric explanation of Dennehy’s serial killing.
This psychiatric approach to Dennehy’s behaviour has several positives; it explains not only her violent behaviour but also other aspects of her behaviour that are abnormal, such as her inability to maintain healthy relationships. This could be due to the manipulation and lack of empathy that goes alongside her various disorders. The same could be said for Dennehy’s self-harming behaviour (Morris, 2014), which also has high co-morbidity rates with psychopathy (McKerracher, Loughnane, & Watson, 2018). Overall, psychiatry explains a wide range of Dennehy’s behaviour and gives a strong case for her predisposal to violent behaviour as it is based on a proven diagnosis. Psychiatry also in stark contrast to developmental approaches, does also suggest a trigger for her violent behaviour- in Dennehy’s case it could relate to her sadistic desires (perhaps even erotophonophilia) and the intensity of her cravings as a trigger (Purcell & Arrigo, 2006.) Following this notion, the sexual gratification Dennehy claimed to have felt when committing murder (Morris, 2014) would have reinforced this behaviour and pushed her to commit more offences. Therefore, the psychiatric approach offers a strong argument for Dennehy’s psychopathy and sadistic desires to be a root cause of her behaviour.
Although, an explanation of Dennehy’s abnormal behaviour could not be complete without acknowledging that she is a woman in a patriarchal society, which could have had an influence on her behaviour. A feminist approach from West (2000) argues in retaliation to feminist legal theory that Western society is fundamentally patriarchal and in order to gain attention and visibility, women must speak and act in a masculine way. Morrissey (2003, p.44) applies this theory to the psychology of female serial killers, asserting that male obliviousness to female suffering can push women to kill- this could be police officers, court officials, or family members for example. Dennehy’s case certainly follows this idea, with all three of her victims knowing her personally, particularly with one of her victims being her landlord- a key patriarchal figure who held financial power over Dennehy and whom she dressed in a black dress before disposing of the body (Dodd, 2014.) A feminist perspective may link this to resource theory (Goode, 1971), which suggests that men with a higher income have access to resources with which to control their wives. This could potentially be seen in Dennehy and her lover and landlord Kevin Lee, as previously highlighted. Dennehy’s actions then are subversive of typical patriarchal society, and potentially follows Morrissey’s (2003) assertion that men’s obliviousness can push women to kill, especially if she felt controlled by Lee’s monetary status and legal power over her.
However, this theory relies on the notion that women are submissive up to a point, where they are ‘pushed’ to kill. Dennehy does not seem to be submissive or in line with patriarchal stereotypes in anyway, as her ex-partner looked after her children, she was regularly promiscuous, and she was frequently cited as being sexually aggressive (Morris, 2014)- all of which point to the opposite of a submissive female. Nevertheless, this does still support West’s (2000) argument, as ultimately to gain attention Dennehy committed the ultimate act of ‘masculine’ power, as serial murder has always been viewed in the media as a male act (Simpson, 2001). Overall, the feminist perspective seems somewhat confused in the case of Dennehy, ultimately because there is very little literature on female serial killers who find sexual pleasure in killing. This approach does have some clear benefits, mainly that it takes into account Dennehy’s gender which is of key importance in understanding this particular crime as it is so uncommon. In comparison, the developmental and psychiatric approaches do not take into account the influence of a male dominated society on Dennehy’s actions, as they focus mainly on her predisposition to violence. Therefore, this approach is strongest when used in conjunction with other perspectives that offer a reason for the predisposition to violence- such as developmental or psychiatric explanations.
When used in combination, these three approaches do provide a rounded explanation of why Dennehy was predisposed to commit such an act, and potentially what instigated her offences. Ultimately this is all speculation, but an integrated approach would be the most rounded in understanding why Dennehy was predisposed to violence from an early age, struggled to maintain health relationships, and what ‘pushed’ her over the edge.
Bibliography
Arrigo, B., & Griffin, A. (2004). Serial Murder and the Case of Aileen Wuornos: Attachment Theory, Psychopathy, and Predatory Aggression. Behavioural Science and the Law, 22, 375- 393.
Boduszek, D., & Debowska, A. (2015). Critical evaluation of psychopathy measurement (PCL-R and SRP-III/SF) and recommendations for future research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 44, 1-12.
Boduszek, D., Debowska, A., & Wilmott, D. (2017). Latent profile analysis of psychopathic traits among homicide, general violent, property, and white-collar offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 51, 17-23.
Boduszek, D., Debowska, A., Dhingra, K., & DeLisi, M. (2016). Introduction and validation of Psychopathic Personality Trait Scale (PPTS) in a large sample. Journal of Criminal Justice, 46, 9-17.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Separation: Anxiety & Anger. Attachment and Loss (vol. 2). London: Hogarth Press.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Loss: Sadness & depression. Attachment and loss (vol. 3.) London: Hogarth Press.
Debowska, A., Boduszel, D., Dhingra, K., Sherretts, N., Willmott, D., & DeLisi, M. (2016). Can We Use Hare’s Psychopathy Model within Forensic and Non-Forensic Populations? An Empirical Investigation. Deviant Behaviour, 39 (2), 224-242.
Dodd, V. (2014, February 28). Joanna Dennehy: serial killer becomes first woman told by judge to die in jail. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/28/joanna-dennehy-serial-killer-first-woman-die-in-jail.
Fonagy, P., & Target, M. (1997). Attachment and reflective function: their role in self-organisation. Developmental Psychopathology, 9 (4), 679-700.
Gavin, H. (2019). Criminological & Forensic Psychology (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.
Goode, W. (1971). Force and violence in the family. Journal of Marriage and Family, 33 (4), 624- 636.
Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Hare, R. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. North Tonawanda, New York: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D. (2016). Psychopathy, the PCL-R, and criminal Justice: Some new findings and current issues. Canadian Psychology, 57(1), 21-34. doi:10.1037/cap0000041
Keenan, J. (2014, May 8). Joanna Dennehy is only the third woman to…. Eastern Daily Press. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.libaccess.hud.ac.uk/docview/ 1521862899? accounted =11526.
Kirsch, L.G., & Becker, J.V. (2007). Emotional deficits in psychopathy and sexual sadism: Implications for violent and sadistic behaviour. Clinical Psychology Review, 27(8), 904-922
Levinson, A., & Fonagy, P. (2004). Offending and Attachment: The Relationship between Interpersonal Awareness and Offending in a Prison Population with Psychiatric Disorder. Canadian Journal of Psychoanalysis, 12 (2), 225-251.
McKerracher, D., Loughnane, T., & Watson, R. (1968). Self-Mutilation in Female Psychopaths. British Journal of Psychiatry, 114 (512), 829-832. doi:10.1192/bjp.114.512.829
Morris, S. (2014, February 12). From netball team to psychopath: the strange descent of Joanna Dennehy. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/12/joanna-dennehy-psychology-sadomasochism-murder.
Morrissey, B. (2003). When women kill: Questions of agency and subjectivity. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com.
Purcell, C. E., & Arrigo, B. A. (2006). The psychology of lust murder: Paraphilia, sexual killing, and serial homicide. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Ratip, D. (2013). The role of attachment in violent offending and violence in institutions (Phd Thesis). University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
Simpson, B. (2001). Murder, prostitution and patriarchy: why serial killing is a feminist issue. Alternative Law Journal, 26 (6), 278- 285.
Ward, T., Hudson, S. M., & Marshall, W. L. (1996). Attachment style in sex offenders: A preliminary study. The Journal of Sex Research, 33, 17-26.
West, R. (2000). The Difference in Women’s Hedonic Lives: A Phenomenological Critique of Feminist Legal Theory. Wisconsin Women’s Law Journal, 15 (1), 149-215. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu.