Lorena Bobbitt: Story of an Abuse Survivor Who Fought Back

Background Information 

In 1993, Lorena L. Bobbitt made headlines after cut John Wayne Bobbitt, her abusive ex-husband’s penis, and threw it through the window of her car. The incident occurred in Manassas, Virginia, on June 23, 1993. In November 1993, John was tried for marital sexual assault but was acquitted. Before 1993, the American states' rape laws had an exception if the victim was in a romantic relationship with the perpetrator (England,2010). However, in 1993, this exception was eliminated, but its effects impacted several spousal rape prosecutions (England,2010). In Virginia, for instance, it was extremely difficult to prove marital rape by a spouse, the main reason behind Bobbitt’s acquittal. 

In January 1994, Lorena was brought to trial for malicious wounding that would subject her to a minimum sentence of twenty years if found guilty. Throughout her trial, Lorena maintained that she was a victim of domestic violence and marital rape in her marriage. Her defense team argued that domestic violence and marital rape had driven Lorena to temporary insanity. On January 21, 1994, a twelve bench jury made of seven women and five men acquitted her charges on a temporary insanity basis. However, she was sent to a 45-day psychiatric evaluation as stipulated in Virginia state laws. The verdict left mixed reactions to the US citizens as they debated whether Lorena was a victim of abuse and whether her actions were justified. The case drew a heated debate on social media. While some believed that Lorena’s actions were justified, others argue that she got away too easily and believes that her actions were deliberate rather than impulsive. Regardless of the outcome, it is evident that domestic violence and marital sex against women is a vice in the societies that need to be fixed. 

Gene-Environmental Influences on Psychopathy 

R Blair (2013) defines psychopathy as "a disorder characterized by pronounced emotional deficits, marked by reduction in guilt and empathy, and involves increased risk for displaying antisocial behavior" (p.181). Several etiological factors are contributing to psychopathy. These factors can be classified into primary psychopathy (genetics) and secondary psychopathy (socio-environmental risk factors); that is, nature vs. nurture (Patrick, 2018). Psychopathy is characterized by traits related to boldness, such as social dominance, which is the degree to which an individual supports group-based hierarchies (Patrick, 2018) . People with high social dominance ordinance believe in a structured society that is based on inequalities. Such beliefs constitute the hierarchy-enhancing myths used to justify group-based domination. 

For instance, such psychopaths may believe in rape myth acceptance , which influences marital rape perceptions. Willis et al. (2017) define Rape myth acceptance (RMA) “as the endorsement of false beliefs about rape that typically place blame on the victim rather than the perpetrator" (p.230). These attitudes lead to the development of sexual scripts and how people should behave and act sexually. These perceptions determine an individual's sexual attitudes and behavior, especially to people who endorse rape myths. Consequently, this leads to the assailants denying their actions as rape, and the victims not perceiving their ordeals as rape. Thus, psychopathy and Rape myth acceptance (RMA) are highly correlated. 

According to Bennice et al. (2010), 14% of married women experience marital rape incidents. Despite this high number of marital rape, the perpetrators have not been prosecuted. Traditionally, men were only prohibited from forcing women into sex, except for their wives. Marital rape exceptions date back to the years of British common law. In the traditional context, marriages were deemed as contracts that included a husband's right to sex; that is, it was assumed that women had given sexual consent when they agreed to the marriage contract (England, 2010). Thus, their husband could have sex with them at any time of their will. Likewise, in the traditional view, women were deemed to be the husband’s property; thus, men had all rights to have sex with them at any time they please. Moreover, states were discouraged from interfering with marital matters. Consequently, men were granted rights to divorce their wives if they denied them sex (England, 2010). 

Likewise, the modern views of marital rape differ less from traditional views. In the modern view, a lack of a wife’s consent is impossible to prove since the couple is assumed to have had consensual sexual engagements several times. Likewise, husbands have the right to have sex with their wives at any time they wish without fear of being prosecuted. Thus, as evident, both traditional and modern views support male chauvinism and give fewer legal protections to female victims of marital rape. To that end, women refrained from reporting forced sex since “ believe they have no right to refuse sexual advances made by their husbands ” (Bennice et al., 2010, p.1). If marital rape incidents occur, women tend to blame themselves for their sexual inadequacies. This often leads to personal shame and self-blame, which is reinforced by the societal blaming culture . According to Gul & Schuster (2020), “ even though rape is considered as a heinous act and a crime, it is often the victim rather than the perpetrator who is blamed and held responsible for the rape ” (p.341). For instance, a large-scale survey involving young adults conducted in Europe revealed that 27% of the male and 20% of the female participants’ blame females for their rape predicaments ( Gul & Schuster, 2020) . Blaming rape victims has adverse effects on women and can lead to the development of mental disorders. 

Cultural variables, such as gender ‐ related norms, values, and beliefs, influence sexual assault judgments that contribute greatly to marital rape. For instance, the culture of honor is blamed for tolerating men’s sexual aggression towards women, especially in intimate relationships. In an honor ‐ face ‐ dignity culture framework, cultural variations are based on the different approaches cultures manage social order and relationships and how each culture defines its grounds for self-worth ( Gul & Schuster, 2020) . In honor cultures, self-worth is dependent on one’s reputation and how they perceive others think about them. Therefore, individuals are likely to engage in aggressive behaviors to protect their reputations. In these cultures, “social norms and values emphasize the importance of female chastity and loyalty, and regard these issues as part of men's reputation” ( Gul & Schuster, 2020 P.342). Thus, men in these cultures are bestowed power to exert total control on their female partners. 

This also gives men the ability to engage in sexually coercive behaviors toward their spouses. Societies that endorse honor cultures tend to blame the victims of marital rape and condone the perpetrators. Among the various forms of rape, marital rape is perceived to have less severe repercussions and less likely to be subjected to criminality. Likewise, perpetrators of marital rape are blamed less while the victims take all the blame compared to when the perpetrators and the victims are strangers ( Gul & Schuster, 2020) . Blaming the victims of rape and exonerating the perpetrators asserts the traditional gender roles that dominate societies. Grubb & Turner (2012) reported that these traditional gender roles have led to a higher marital rape myth acceptance. 

The legal system has also complicated the intricacies in the prosecution of marital rape perpetrators. Until the late 1970s, no male perpetrator of rape had been convicted successfully due to the marital rape exemption. It is only up to the 1980s that a marital rape case involving in People v. Liberta led to a successful conviction after the perpetrator broke into a house and raped his wife, who was living in a house away from her. The assailant would later unsuccessfully appeal the case in New York's highest court. This court also struck down the marital rape exception by terming it unconstitutional. To that end, the high court discredited the traditional and modern views of marital rape. The ruling made it clear that marital privacy should protect the interests of both spouses; thus, men should not coerce their partners into sex. Likewise, from the ruling, the court made it clear that not all wives are potentially vindictive. 

This followed all the American states abolishing the exception of marital rape. However, by March 1996, only seventeen states had taken actions to abolish this exemption (Mahoney & Williams, 1998). Likewise, in some states, the exemption remains in special cases, such as when the partner is mentally or physically Impaired. Moreover, given that each state has its sexual offense codes, it creates loopholes for perpetrators to continue demeaning their partners by forcefully engaging them into having sex. To date, some states are still contemplating on the way to close marital rape loopholes. 

That said, there are adverse effects of psychopaths experiencing stigma. Firstly, these people feel ashamed of themselves, which keeps them away from seeking help. For instance, marital rape victims prefer to remain silent as they feel ashamed of themselves, knowing that society will blame them for their predicaments. Likewise, these victims may undergo multiple ordeals of rape in their marriage, which affects them psychologically to the point of psychotic breakdown. For instance, in Lorena's case, she accounts for her repeated domestic violence and marital rape ordeals. This pushed her to the point of a psychotic breakdown that led to cutting her ex-husband's penis. 

Psychological effects of domestic violence and marital rape on women 

According to Bennice et al. (2010), battered women show psychological symptoms that are consequences of ongoing trauma. As Margolick (1994) reported in Lorena Bobbitt's verdict, she was suffering from mental illnesses after years of battering that poised her for a complete psychotic breakdown. Women subjected to domestic violence and marital rape stand risking suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (DeJonghe et al., 2008). These authors also report that 20-64% of all gender violence cases against women relates to romantic relationships. Intimate partner violence pauses physical injuries to women and mental health impairments, including low self-esteem, PSTD, and psychiatric distress. DeJonghe et al. (2008) define PSTD as " a syndrome of intrusive re-experiencing, avoidance and emotional numbing, and hyper arousal symptoms that occurs in some individuals in the aftermath of a traumatic event ” (P.294). 45% to 84% of omen victims subjected to domestic violence and marital rape suffer from PSTD (DeJonghe et al., 2008). Moreover, women with PSTD also have other underlying mental health problems such as mood and anxiety disorders. 

On the other hand, psychiatric distress is any form of mental illness that affects the victim's normal function. Mental disorders include psychopathy, which increases their vulnerabilities. More often than not, individuals judge Psychopathic patients as violent, which might not be the case. The notion that Psychopathic criminals  recidivate    more than regular criminals is not always true since “not all psychopaths turn to a life of crime, and not all criminals are psychopaths” (Gonzalez-Tapia et al., 2017 P.47) . However, contrary to other diagnosable mental health problems, psychopathy cannot be excused in a criminal court. To date, most criminal courts use the traditional approach that psychopathy is not a mental disorder but the personality of an individual due to the criminality aspects associated with it. Legal Critics have been criticizing the current legal system for using this approach of psychopathy treatment. Thus, they call for the application of other methods other than biosocial impairments in the treatment of psychopathy. 

Temporary insanity and accountability in the criminal justice 

The assessment of accountability should refer to when the crime was committed unless the defendant committed the crime through due negligence. According to Gonzalez-Tapia et al. (2017) , “the SPC requires that the lack of accountability or capacity for culpability is due to mental anomaly or impairment (alteration). This abnormal mental state would only require proof (by the defendant) of a pathological structure or activity of the brain, even with unknown causes” (p.52). In other instances, the law may require the defendant to undergo mental illness evaluations to determine whether the criminal acts are done out of a free will or influenced by underlying mental conditions. For instance, in Lorena's case, the jury concluded that her actions were a result of temporary insanity; thus, she was not held accountable. However, the jury sent her for a mental illness evaluation that took five weeks. 

The insanity defense mechanism allows the defendant to prove that they were mentally incapacitated at the time of the crime that they could not identify the magnitude of their actions. Perpetrators may get away with their actions regardless of the magnitude of the offense; however, this approach has controversies. Critics of this approach argue that defendants get away with their actions on mere claims that revenge, or other eventualities, and not a mental illness, influenced their actions. For instance, Lorena blamed domestic violence and marital rape as the cause of her actions towards her abusive husband. Likewise, critics do not condone insanity pleas, especially when the defendant is no longer insane. 

Psychopathic treatment implications 

The primary goal of treating Psychopathic is to reduce the occurrence of antisocial behaviors. The major difference between Psychopathic people and the rest is that they lack empathy, which cannot be instilled using medications or therapy talks. Researchers conducted have suggested that the personality traits with Psychopathic people cannot be treated. Attempts to treat these personality traits make them more dangerous. However, some isolated cases are where individuals engage in antisocial behaviors but are not bound to live as criminals. That said, targeting high-risk offenders for treatment programs leaves the low-risk offenders unattended. Thus, therapists ought to use an intervention model that maximizes the offender's engagement in the treatment and the effectiveness of the treatment services used to influence changes (Patrick, 2018) . 

According to Patrick (2018), professional therapists combine cognitive and behavioral techniques while working with higher-risk offenders. These techniques are effective in influencing such offenders to change their criminal risk factors. Consequently, when their clients portray characteristics that do not align with the intervention method used, such as showing hostility traits, therapists should not rush to conclude that the treatment method is ineffective. Rather, therapists should be prepared to handle such traits in a way that aligns with the intervention technique used. 

Prevention of Psychopathic in future 

Characteristics given to psychopaths are undesirable, so the criminal justice system treats them as personality traits rather than disorders. However, not all psychopaths can be classified as criminals, and the vice versa is true. Contrary, there are also pro-social psychopaths. Regardless, some psychopaths threaten the social order in the communities. That said, while some psychopathic characteristics are genetically acquired, others are environmentally acquired. Due to the negative impacts of psychopathy on the communities, several initiatives, such as healthcare and criminal justice interventions, have been undertaken. Healthcare systems are meant to help the victims overcome their health problems. In contrast, the criminal justice system is meant to deter offenders from threatening others' safety within the communities and reduce the rate of recidivism. 

However, the criminal justice system has been criticized for its effectiveness in violent response since psychopathy recidivism is still high. To that end, the public healthcare system focuses on primary prevention that deters the initiation of psychopathic behaviors. 

Conclusion 

Not all psychopaths are dangerous criminals. It is also evident that there are several gene-environmental factors of abuse that leads to Psychopathic behaviors. In most cases, the legal system assumes that individuals with Psychopathic behaviors ought to be punished for their personality. However, if a defendant can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that their actions result from temporary insanity, they may be held unaccountable for their actions. Consequently, temporary insanity has also been subjected to controversies. Thus, there needs to be a public based health intervention to deter the initiation of psychopathic behaviors. 

References 

Bennice, J. A., Resick, P. A., Mechanic, M., & Astin, M. (2010). The relative effects of intimate partner physical and sexual violence on post-traumatic stress disorder symptomatology.  Violence and Victims ,  18 (1), 87–94. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2981038/ 

England, D. C. (2010, March).  The History of Marital Rape Laws . Www.Criminaldefenselawyer.Com; Nolo. https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/crime-penalties/marital-rape.htm 

DeJonghe, E. S., Bogat, G. A., Levendosky, A. A., & von Eye, A. (2008). Women survivors of intimate partner violence and post-traumatic stress disorder: Prediction and prevention.  Journal of postgraduate medicine ,  54 (4), 294. http://www.bioline.org.br/pdf?jp08102 

Gonzalez-Tapia, M. I., Obsuth, I., & Heeds, R. (2017). A new legal treatment for psychopaths? Perplexities for legal thinkers.  International Journal of Law and Psychiatry ,  54 , 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2017.04.004 

Gul, P., & Schuster, I. (2020). Judgments of marital rape as a function of honor culture, masculine reputation threat, and observer gender: A cross‐cultural comparison between Turkey, Germany, and the UK.  Aggressive Behavior ,  46 (4), 341–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21893 

Mahoney, P., & Williams, L. M. (1998).  Sexual Assault in Marriage: Prevalence, Consequences, and Treatment of Wife Rape . http://www.ncdsv.org/images/nnfr_partnerviolence_a20-yearliteraturereviewandsynthesis.pdf 

Margolick, D. (1994, January 19). Psychiatrist Says Years of Abuse Led Woman to Cut Husband.  The New York Times . https://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/19/us/psychiatrist-says-years-of-abuse-led-woman-to-cut-husband.html ? 

Patrick, C. J. (2018).  Handbook of Psychopathy (2nd. Ed.), New York: Guilford Press | ISBN-13: 978-1462535132 | ISBN-10: 1462535135 

R Blair, R. J. (2013). Psychopathy: cognitive and neural dysfunction.  Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience ,  15 (2), 181–190. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3811089/ 

Resnick, H. S., Falsetti, S. A., & Cahill, S. P. (2000). Marital Rape.  Case Studies in Family Violence , 375–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4171-4_17 

Willis, M., Birthrong, A., King, J. S., Nelson-Gray, R. O., & Latzman, R. D. (2017). Are infidelity tolerance and rape myth acceptance related constructs? An association moderated by psychopathy and narcissism.  Personality and Individual Differences ,  117 , 230–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.015 

.