American Board of Information Security and Computer Forensics

by Frank S. Perri, JD, MBA, CPA and Terrance G. Lichtenwald, PhD

Introduction

Within the past 50 years, industrialized countries have witnessed the rise of women filling positions traditionally held by men. At one time, women were not thought of as capable of fulfilling such positions because of beliefs surrounding gender that were based on socio-cultural norms. Women were deemed less intelligent than men; thus, the thought of a well-educated woman appeared foreign. Moreover, women were thought of as the weaker sex and the thought of women participating in the military or in law enforcement was not tolerated. Yet as we have observed throughout the decades, myths surrounding what women are and are not capable of have dissipated over time.

The authors believe the area of female criminality adheres to myths still accepted by the majority of society but has slowly been changing. While many areas of female progress are attributed to the empowerment of women historically, the study of female criminality (as opposed to the study of male criminality) has only recently been linked to antisocial behaviors instead of relying on socio-cultural explanations. Common and legitimate explanations used to rationalize homicides committed by females include killing because of a mental illness, coercion, or because they were abused (Follingstad et al., 1989). Such explanations, however, ignore the possibility that motives for both genders may be steeped in antisocial behaviors where violence is not necessarily reactive, such as claiming self-defense to a physically abusive situation, but planned in a cold-blooded manner facilitated by those who harbor psychopathic traits to satisfy diverse motives.

The purpose of this article is not to address whether there has been an increase in female violence and its potential causes, or to revisit already well documented statistics that show males tend to engage in more violent crimes than women. The goal of this article is to analyze homicides committed by women, the diverse motives for the kill, and the offender’s psychopathic traits that may facilitate the use of murder to satisfy a motive. The article reveals that the underlying behavioral traits are gender neutral even though the methods and motives to kill may at times be gender specific and societal misconceptions still attribute gender specific explanations to crimes such as homicide.

Some of the issues the authors tackle to support the position that motives to kill are diverse and that some female killers exhibit psychopathic traits include case studies on Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy, fraud detection homicide, kill teams, female serial killers, and cesarean section homicide. The authors further examine how the criminal justice system displays the myth in terms of how it influences homicide trials. The authors conclude by cautioning forensic examiners and those in law enforcement to not succumb to misconceptions of gender-based violence when interacting with female psychopaths.

Societal Perceptions or Misconceptions

“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate,
contrived and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”

~President John F. Kennedy

The myth that females are not aggressive is being challenged in the literature as well as by the statistical evidence that influences society’s view relative to the existence of the problem of female aggression (Denfeld, 1997). However, violent aggression is still considered the province of men, one of the most pervasive myths of our time (Pearson, 1997). Male dominance, as expressed through aggression, has been historically supported by a patriarchal society that viewed female aggression as a threat and, as an extension, unnatural and atypical (Jack, 1999). Dating back to at least 2500 BC, women were considered subservient to men and were punished for indiscretions according to written Greek and Roman law (Steinmetz, 1980). However, times have changed and women now participate in combat, work in law enforcement, and compete in the corporate world (Beckner, 2005). As for their criminal inclinations, Jack (1999) wrote, “And women hurt others. They abuse, kill, inflict harm on the human spirit, and dominate others through pain and intimidation ... Violence is not limited to men.”

When the authors speak of myths, what we are referring to is not necessarily the mythological stories of antiquity. Although these stories may be relevant, our reference to myths is the more colloquial basis of some beliefs—which may or may not be accurate—that are extrapolated from fact or fiction and used to explain human behaviors, practices, societal ideals of a society, an individual(s), or a segment of society. For example, some beliefs may be based on a fictional story that conveys a truism about human behavior, such as the Greek story of Narcissus and the self-destructive behaviors of excessive pride. Conversely, some beliefs may be based on an interpretation of truthful facts that should not be used to provide an explanation for similar but different scenarios, though they may apply for a limited purpose. For example, some women kill because they were abused; however, this limited explanation should not be used as a general explanation of all motives for female homicide.

The authors understand the utility of myths because myths may serve a useful purpose in explaining life lessons—the problem that the authors observe is that the use of myths lacks completeness when applied to criminological elements. In essence, culturally we have forgotten how the ancients may have used myths to explain human behaviors in more complete terms that were gender neutral, such as the capability of depravity by both men and women. For example, we have cultural archetypes such as Mother Earth, which evokes a nurturing image of the female gender. Conversely, the image of Mother Nature also evokes images of wrath in which innocents are not spared; it is this aspect of the myth that tends to be ignored or denied when examining female aggression. Moreover, Freud and psychoanalytic theory were influential in the evolution of theories related to aggression; the influence of World War I on Freud’s views increased his perception that aggression was mostly male and instinctual (Jack, 1999). Women functioned as a calming effect on the aggressive and/or sexual drives that moved men to violent behavior (Beckner, 2005). Those women who did not repress their anger were considered masculine, thus perpetuating the belief that aggressiveness in women was an anomaly. From a societal perspective, this assumption that aggression is an inherent characteristic to males, as passivity is to females, perpetuated a patriarchal structure that was dominant until the feminist movement of the 1970s and still influences certain aspects of society today. Women who were aggressive were labeled irrational and in need of psychotherapy (Beckner, 2005).

Even from an evolutionary perspective, Darwin’s views influenced societal perceptions of his belief that the success of human evolution was due, in large part, to the differences between males and females (Jack 1999). A female who exhibited perceived masculine characteristics (e.g. aggression) or a male who had feminine characteristics was considered to be reminiscent of less developed species (Beckner, 2005). Considering the opinions of Freud and Darwin alone, then coupled with religious and cultural views of how females are perceived, it is not surprising that myths of female aggression have persisted and have been perpetrated for as long as they have—the aggressive female is still considered to have an abnormal, unnatural quality even in the face of evidence illustrating criminal behavior that contradicts the myth of female passivity. As a result, the aggressive female was essentially considered an anomaly throughout the first half of the 20th century, and research pertaining to female aggression (let alone research on female psychopathy) is lacking, which suggests that a “male perspective” has biased research related to female aggression. A more complete study of aggression in females should consider various forms of aggression, both direct and indirect. Jack (1999) commented on the issue: Almost all of what psychologists have thought and felt about aggression has been shaped by a predominantly male perspective. This position is supported by the facts that much of the research conducted on female aggression has been associated with domestic violence or violence perpetrated on a significant other and that many in the social and behavioral sciences communities were unwilling to accept that women could be violent—and men the victims—when researchers examined the evidence of female on male aggression (Beckner, 2005).

When women commit violence, the only explanations offered have been that it is either involuntary, self-defense, the result of mental illness, or hormonal imbalances inherent with female physiology (Vronsky, 2007). Women have been perceived to be capable of committing only reactive or “expressive” violence—an uncontrollable release of pent-up rage or fear—and that they murder unwillingly and without premeditation.  As author and editor of the New York Times Book Review, Samuel Tanenhaus, stated, “female violence is stuck in a ‘time warp’ bound by themes of sexual and domestic trauma” (Wachter, 2010). Our belief in the intrinsic, non-threatening nature of the feminine is deceiving to both genders and actually exposes both to homicidal risks that are ignored because of long-internalized myths about female criminality. As we shall see in the next section on female psychopathy, some of the societal perceptions of female aggression may have influenced the lack of research on female psychopathy because it has not been seriously explored until recently. We will also look at how the myths that still surround female aggression are used by female psychopaths in what Dr. Robert Hare refers to as “impression management.”

Female Psychopathy

“Most of the people I killed were old enough to die, anyway, or else had some disease that might cause death. I never killed children. I love them.”

~Female serial killer Jane Toppan (Vronsky, 2007)

Overview of the Disorder

According to Hare, international psychopathy expert from the University of British Colombia, the term or concept of “psychopathy” has had a long and sometimes confusing history. Dr. Hare states part of the conceptual confusion stems from the use of multiple terms to describe similar personality traits and behavioral patterns (e.g. moral insanity, psychopathic personality, sociopathy, antisocial personality) (Hare, 1991). The concept of psychopathy is no longer an actual clinical diagnosis but rather refers to a specific cluster of traits and behaviors used to describe an individual in terms of pervasive dominating personality traits and behaviors (Hare, 1993). Currently there is no diagnostic criterion in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) (Semple, 2005). Psychopathy is most strongly correlated to the DSM-IV’s antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and is considered a subset of ASPD because the behavioral traits of a psychopath are more severe in terms of lack of consciousness, callousness, and remorselessness. While psychopathy has similarities to ASPD, which is characterized by a disregard for societal rules including criminal behavior, psychopathy is not synonymous with or to be confused with criminality or violence in general. However, those who have psychopathic traits are more at risk for committing crime and acting out violently (Herve & Yuille, 2007).

The concept of psychopathy, however, has been studied for several hundred years before Dr. Hare refined the concept, beginning with French practitioner Philippe Pinel. Pinel observed patients whose behavior was outside of society’s cultural expectations—but who were not clinically insane. The interest in psychopathy continued throughout the centuries until Dr. Hervey Cleckley delineated recurring behavioral traits of psychopathy in his book The Mask of Sanity (1941). Dr. Hare then took the traits delineated by Dr. Cleckley and devised an instrument referred to as the Psychopathic Checklist Revised (PCL-R), which measures whether or not psychopathy is present and the severity of the disorder. One should understand that psychopathy is not a mental illness but a personality disorder. Personality disorders can be characterized by a class of personality types which deviate from societal expectations of acceptable behavior. Although there is a subjective quality to diagnosing personality disorders, research has proven that those who have personality disorders display a rigidity or inflexibility in their thinking, feeling, and behaviors that impairs them from functioning with others in a larger societal context. In contrast to personality disorders, mental illness is characterized by a probability of a biochemical imbalance that may act as a catalyst for the individual to behave in an inexplicable, erratic manner that has no connection to such logic as cause and effect. For example, a person who is delusional and experiencing sensory hallucinations, like feeling as if he is on fire, would consequently have his thought processes disrupted. It is possible that a mentally ill person can premeditate a murder like a psychopath, but the question lies in the thought processes that led to the kill— and how erratic and illogical is their reasoning?

Keep in mind that understanding this aspect of psychopathy is important. One could simply claim to have some type of mental illness diagnosis attempt to explain away behavior that somehow was out of their control. Psychopathy is not a mental illness, although many psychopaths want others to believe that their antisocial ways are a result of a mental deficiency in order to gain favor, especially in criminal legal settings where a judge is required to impose a punishment. It is a common but mistaken belief among law enforcement and forensic professionals that people who commit violent, incomprehensible crimes must be crazy, psychotic, or they “just snapped.” This perception is reinforced in the media (Herve & Yuille, 2007). Moreover, the fact that an individual may have a mental illness does not mean that she cannot also be psychopathic; the two characteristics are not mutually exclusive and co-occur (Murphy & Vess, 2003). Unfortunately, many individuals are capable of fooling professionals who observe “abnormal behavior.” The professionals equate the behavior to a mental illness and ignore the calculating, manipulating, and planning beneath the schemes; these are not the symptoms of someone who is mentally ill.

Dr. Hare described psychopaths as intraspecies predators who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence to control others and to satisfy their own selfish needs. Lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they cold-bloodedly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret (Hare, 1993). The psychopathic theoretical model was first delineated by Cleckley (1941) in The Mask of Sanity, named as such to convey to the reader that psychopaths have a core deficit in emotional sensitivity beneath an overtly normal social exterior. The authors use this concept of the “mask” to ask whether or not the myth of the female character is used as the mask to convey normalcy in the face of aggression. The concept refined by Dr. Hare identifies a number of personality and behavioral characteristics that have become a generally accepted definition of psychopathy.

Some of the major personality and behavioral traits identified by Hare are noted in Figure 1 below (Herve & Yuille, 2006).

Psychopaths are not disoriented or out of touch with reality, nor do they experience the delusions, hallucinations, or intense subjective distress that characterizes most other mental disorders. They are rational and aware of what they are doing and why. Their behavior is the result of choice, freely exercised, but coupled with a distorted sense of reality (Perri & Lichtenwald, 2007). As Edelgard Wulfert, forensic psychologist and professor at the University of New York at Albany, stated, “A psychopath invents reality to conform to his needs” (Grondahl, 2006). Psychopaths also have difficulty projecting into the future; that is, understanding how their actions play themselves out in life, and they also have deficits in reflecting upon their pasts; “[t]hey are prisoners of the present” (Meloy, 2000).

Clinical descriptions of the traits can be misleading. For example, to say that a psychopath is unable to learn from his or her experience is misleading because there is no mental incapacity; psychopaths do learn from the past, but learn only what interests them, not what society wants them to learn (Samenow, 1984). To call them impulsive is to assert a lack of self-control; in reality, psychopaths can rationalize. They have calculating minds that are very much in control. We observe predatory behaviors that are analogous to the animal kingdom—they stalk their prey and do not act impulsively, very analogous to instrumental violence of planning to kill, a trait of psychopathic killers that is more pronounced than in non-psychopathic killers who may kill reactively, such as a crime of passion (Herve & Yuille, 2006). However, some social and behavioral sciences experts are willing to accept that women may engage in reactive violence, such as engaging in self- defense, but refuse to accept the notion that females would be willing to take their time to plan a violent act (Pearson, 1997).

Moreover, do not confuse the lack of a normal range of emotions in these killers as synonymous with being antisocial; they can be very gregarious and charming, but their charming demeanor should not be mistaken for affection or sincerity. In fact, psychopaths want to be able to blend in with others to give the appearance that they too have values and traits that are probably diametrically the opposite of that of the psychopath; thus, the external mask of normalcy they portray to the world is used to shield the true mask of exploitation (Perri & Lichtenwald, 2008a). Blame externalization is a hallmark trait of psychopaths, as exemplified by female serial killer Jane Toppan, who admitted to killing over 30 individuals after nursing school. Toppan stated, “Don’t blame me, blame my nature. I can’t change what was meant to be, can I” (Vronsky, 2007). Toppan is partially correct that it was her “nature” that provided the catalyst to become a cold-blooded killer. She did not suffer from a mental illness that robbed her of her ability to distinguish between right and wrong, the ability to plan her murders, or experience sexual gratification from the deaths.

Although all of the traits are important, certain traits stand out more than others in terms of identifying psychopaths, and those will be presented in this article. Lack of remorse or guilt is the hallmark of psychopathy—in other words, a lack of conscience. Psychopaths do not feel bad for their actions because they are not capable of internalizing how their behavior had an impact on another person. Usually when we feel bad about what we did to hurt someone, an unsettling physical behavior accompanies the remorse. This quality does not apply to psychopaths; they are capable of fooling people with outward signs of emotions because they learned to mimic behaviors that dovetail a given set of circumstances while they themselves feel either nothing or entirely opposite emotions (Meloy, 2000).

Gender Differences

Although men are more likely to show characteristics of psychopathy than women, Cleckley (1976) included female subjects among the prototype cases in the Mask of Sanity, suggesting that the full syndrome of psychopathy occurs in both genders. According to psychopathy expert Hare, there are many clinical accounts of female psychopaths but relatively little empirical research (Carozza, 2008). Reasons for the neglect of research on female psychopathy include the persistence of rigid sex role stereotypes in society and the diagnosis of personality disorders is, to a large extent, influenced by sex role expectations (Widom, 1978). This adherence to sex role stereotypes may explain the reluctance of some diagnosticians to label women with personality disorders that have an antisocial complexion (Brown, 1996). For example, when diagnosing men and women with similar clinical features, mental health professionals tended to label the men as exhibiting antisocial personality disorder and women as exhibiting histrionic personality disorder (Brown, 1996).

What is interesting about this observation is that the authors examined available, but different, editions of Cleckley’s Mask of Sanity and the first mention of female psychopathy that the authors could locate appeared in the fifth edition, published in 1976. The authors consider whether Cleckley may have been unconsciously influenced by sex role stereotypes referred to by Brown (1996) and Widom (1984) and reflected in his diagnosis of Anna, one of the two female psychopaths in the book. Cleckley described Anna as an individual with high intelligence, contagious enthusiasm, who worked out plans for a career with good judgment, and had a taste for living for healthy experiences. Yet the mask she wore for Cleckley did not match her true mask as reflected by her actions outside of Cleckley’s presence. For example, Cleckley revealed Anna’s pathological lying to her parents and others, manipulation of peers and authority figures, physical fights, forgery, document fraud, promiscuous sexual behaviors to rob others, expulsion from school for failing and misconduct, transmitting sexual diseases, urinating on peer clothing, thievery, and a lack of proper remorse for her acts still indicated that “Anna never really seems to have meant much harm to others or to herself.” In Cleckley’s words, she never meant to harm others, but the authors suspect Cleckley may have unconsciously harbored gender stereotyping by dismissing her criminal acts because they were not reflective of male aggression.

Ironically, the very behaviors behind the mask—not the mask of normalcy Anna displayed to Cleckley—were the reason Anna’s parents brought her to Cleckley in the first place but that Cleckley minimizes. It is here that the authors part company with Cleckley’s analysis of Anna when he appears to relieve her of malice, perhaps not grasping that the end result of aggression does not have to mirror male aggression to be harmful. The authors’ position is that the mask can seduce the diagnostician and in the analysis of Anna, Cleckley had difficulty attributing malice to the behaviors behind the mask—the very behaviors he had been trained to look for and acknowledge. For example, although Anna was charged with multiple counts of grand theft auto, he suggested that Anna’s intent was not to keep the vehicles. During Anna’s analysis, Cleckley does not pursue the behavior of Anna arranging specific times and places that she could meet with men under the pretext of a sexual encounter while she robbed them.

When Anna was expelled from one school, her parents were financially able to send Anna to a private school in another part of the country where she could start over. While at the new school, Anna wrote letters to her parents. Cleckley reports:

“In these letters she sometimes mentioned her conviction that she knew of no way to express her gratitude except to show by her own conduct that she did deserve the trust her mother and father had shown in her and the support of their love and understanding. No happiness could mean more than that she would find in making them feel they could be proud of her again.”

This excerpt displays the “double talk” with which psychopaths are well endowed—saying one thing and doing another, telling people what they want to hear to buy themselves time to engage in the next scheme. What is in line with psychopathic reality is that Anna would continue to profess her innocence, claim to behave like a lady, and assert that she is trustworthy while showing no regard for the consequences of her behavior. Anna’s mask of innocence is rooted in her failed ability to form attachments or empathize with others, a hallmark trait of psychopathy. In the final analysis, Cleckley leaves the reader with the consideration of “the possibility that such a person as Anna might be born with a subtle and specific biological defect” since he cannot find any environmental explanations (such as family dynamics, history of abuse, compulsive disorders, etc.) for the development of her behavior. The authors’ question of the mask of innocence is more likely to be attributed to a female criminal than to a male. Cleckley further supports the assertion that Anna’s criminal behavior falls within the lower range of antisocial when he states the following: “It is interesting to note that Anna, unlike so many whose conduct closely resembles hers in other respects, seems never to have committed a major felony or tried to do serious physical injury to another.” It appears as if Cleckley is indicating that because Anna’s aggression does not dovetail male-like physical aggression, she is considered more harmless or less culpable. If Cleckley were predisposed to the myth of female criminality, then Anna’s seduction of Cleckley would not be surprising.

Given the negative connotation of some of the traits inherent in psychopathy (such as being manipulative, remorseless, callous, parasitic, irresponsible, etc.), the reluctance to place the label of “psychopathic” on females is not surprising. This reluctance is due in part to the historical position that women are passive, emotional, nurturing, and self-sacrificing, and is coupled with the belief that female criminals are viewed as psychiatrically unstable (Brown, 1996). By labeling women as psychiatrically unstable, this removes accountability from their actions, which contradicts the diagnosis of psychopathy that clearly indicates that they are not suffering from some type of delusional thinking (Brown, 1996). Not only does the pervasiveness of the myth of the female character percolate into forensic studies of personality disorders that is in direct contradiction to the behavior displayed by female offenders but, as we shall see, the myth is also perpetuated in the legal setting with the assistance of forensic psychology and psychiatry. Nevertheless, the available evidence suggests that male and female psychopaths share similar interpersonal and affective features, including egocentricity, deceptiveness, shallow emotions, and lack of empathy (Carozza, 2008). All will make maximum use of their physical attributes to deceive and manipulate others, but female psychopaths may be less prone than males to use overt, direct physical aggression to attain their needs (Carozza, 2008). Researchers have found evidence of at least two broad categories of female psychopaths; one category appears to be characterized by interpersonal deception, sensation seeking, proneness to boredom, and a lack of empathy, and the second category appears to be characterized by early behavioral problems, promiscuous sexual behavior, and adult, nonviolent antisocial behavior (Salekin et al., 1997).

However, as we shall see in this article, female psychopaths are willing to resort to brutal violence to attain their needs; violence is simply a solution that is available to them as other forms to control someone (such as deceit, manipulation, charming someone, etc). While most of us have strong inhibitions to injure others, violence is a solution psychopaths use when they are angered, defied, frustrated that their narcissistic sense of entitlement is threatened, and give little thought to the pain and humiliation experienced by their victims. Their violence is callous and can be planned in order to satisfy a want, and psychopaths’ reaction to their actions are likely to be indifferent, possibly coupled with a sense of power, pleasure, and a smug satisfaction instead of remorse (Hare, 1991). Many of the personality and behavioral features associated with psychopathy in men are also found in women, and the more severe psychopathy in women has been linked to greater instances of violent and nonviolent offenses. However, researchers have only begun to investigate female psychopathy within the last 15 years since research has focused almost exclusively on the characteristics of male offenders. For example, do the traits that tend to predict male psychopathy apply in equal strength to women? Is female psychopathy expressed differently than male psychopathy?

Gender differences are clearly observed in the prevalence, severity, behavioral expression, and factor structure of psychopathy (Warren et al., 2003). However, the question is raised whether the differences found in psychopathy research to this point reflect actual gender-based differences or are the result of potential biases in sampling, diagnostic criteria, and/or assessment instruments. Moreover, disagreement remains in the most suitable factor solution for measuring psychopathy in females. What is certain is that although there may be differences of opinion on how psychopathy is expressed across gender or how it should be measured, the core traits of psychopathy (such as exploiting others or institutions for self-servicing reasons, lack of empathy, lack of remorse, blame externalization, etc.) hold true for both genders. At their core, especially male and female psychopathic killers, they harbor a depravity that stands outside our moral universe.

Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD) is characterized by traits reflecting pervasive attention-seeking behaviors that include inappropriate sexual seductiveness and exaggerated or shallow emotions—and appears to have the strongest relationship to psychopathy in female samples (Salekin et al., 1997). Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is characterized by a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy and appears to have a stronger relationship to male psychopaths than female psychopaths (Blackburn & Coid, 1998). Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is characterized by traits reflecting “black-and-white” thinking and instability in relationships, self-image, and behavior—appears to have a modest relationship with psychopathy, regardless of gender (Salekin et al., 1997). Given the overlap of personality traits with each other, there appears to be momentum to categorize subtypes of psychopathy into four types that can be empirically verified, namely psychopathy that may be categorized as narcissistic, antisocial, borderline, and histrionic personality disorders (Murphy & Vess, 2003).

Female psychopaths were comparable to psychopathic males in terms of irresponsible lifestyles (Rogers et al., 2007). Female psychopaths typically have higher unemployment rates, relationship instability, and dependency on social assistance programs, while male psychopaths tend to have higher rates of unlawful behavior and violent crimes (Salekin et al., 1998). Analysis of adolescent populations found gender differences in psychopathy related to violence. Specifically, nonviolent antisocial behavior appeared to be key to understanding psychopathy in females, whereas violent antisocial behavior was more important in males (Cruise et al., 2003). Sexual conduct has emerged in several studies differentiating between male and female psychopathy; specifically, female psychopaths appear to engage in more promiscuous sexual behavior than males (Grann, 2000).

These findings are likely due to gender specific socialization in which assumption of strong, dominant roles is expected and accepted more so for men than it is for women. As a result, psychopathic female offenders appear to demonstrate significant concern regarding impression management, a propensity to portray themselves in the most favorable light to others, which has not been reported in male psychopathic offenders (O’Connor, 2002). This characteristic may play an instrumental role, as we shall observe, in whether they have more options for impression management by the myths that are available for them to exploit for their benefit, especially in a legal setting. Yet what is certain is that both male and female psychopaths are not affectionate, they do not value traditional social norms or close relationships, can be vengeful or physically violent, and victimize others for personal gain (O’Connor, 2002). Ratings of female psychopathy in youth reflected much less aggression than those of males (Salekin et al., 1997). Furthermore, Cruise et al. (2003) reported that (a) physical cruelty to people and/or animals and (b) bullying/threatening were prototypical of psychopathy in male but not female youth. Females with psychopathic traits might rely on different tactics than psychopathic males to achieve the same goals; for example, brute force in general is less likely to achieve the same results as men, thus women may resort to manipulation and flirtation as methods to achieve similar results (Nicholls & Petrila, 2005). In the next section, different motives to kill are examined.