An analysis of the characteristics and motives of the UK homicides involving acts of dismemberment
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-06-2022-0018 |
| Published date | 20 December 2022 |
| Date | 20 December 2022 |
| Pages | 1-17 |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Criminal psychology,Sociology,Sociology of crime & law,Deviant behaviour,Public policy & environmental management,Policing,Criminal justice |
| Author | Victoria Jade Pointon,Michelle Wright |
An analysis of the characteristics and
motives of the UK homicides involving
acts of dismemberment
Victoria Jade Pointon and Michelle Wright
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this study was to contribute to the evidence base by analysing the
characteristicsand motives of homicides involvingacts of dismemberment.
Design/methodology/approach –The current study explored offence, victim and offender
characteristics and the motivesfor 71 homicides involving dismemberment using open sourcedata. All
cases included in this study were investigated in the UK between 1970 and 2016. A non-metric multi-
dimensional scaling procedure smallest space analysis (SSA) was used to explore the characteristics
and motivesderived from a content analysis of homicidedata sourced online.
Findings –A distinction betweenexpressive and instrumental characteristicswas observable with three
thematicregions identified: instrumental –defensive,instrumental –predatory and expressive–affective.
Support was found for previously identified motives for criminal dismemberment, with defensive being
the mostcommon motive identified in 63% (N= 45) of the cases.
Originality/value –The implications of the findings are discussed with suggestions made for future
research. Thefindings have practical implicationsfor assisting law enforcement and forensicand clinical
practitionersin further understanding offenders who engagein homicidal dismemberment. This includes
aiding homicide investigations, in terms of supporting investigators to draw upon offence, victim and
offender characteristics and motives for homicides involving acts of dismemberment. Differentiation
between cases of dismemberment and understandingof motives also has practical implications for the
developmentof interventions and treatment pathwaysfor homicide offenders who dismember victims.
Keywords Dismemberment, Homicide, Characteristics, Motives, Instrumental,Expressive
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Dismemberment of a human body is viewed within society as one of the most heinous of acts,
as it not only involves killing a victim but also psychologically dismissing their existence (Holmes
and Holmes, 2002). Pu
¨schel and Koops (1987, p. 28) defined criminal dismemberment as “the
perpetrator fragmenting the corpse or severing a part of a body, in an act that is performed in
bad faith”. There is further distinction between dismemberment and mutilation. Stone and
Brucato (2019,pp.83–84) defined dismemberment as “the entire removal, by any means, of a
large section of the body of a living or dead person, specifically, the head (also termed
decapitation), arms, hands, torso, pelvic area, legs, or feet”. Mutilation, however, is definedas :
[...]the removal or irreparable disfigurement, by any means, of some smaller portion of one of
those larger sections of a living or dead person. The latter would include castration (removal of
the penis), evisceration (removal of the internal organs), and flaying (removal of the skin).
In the UK, sentencing guidelines outline various mitigating and aggravating factors, used to
justify decreasing or increasing prison sentences for individualsconvicted of homicide. The
Victoria Jade Pointon is
based at Midlands
Partnership NHS
Foundation Trust,
Staffordshire, UK.
Michelle Wright is based at
Greater Manchester Police,
Manchester, UK.
Received 24 June 2022
Revised 24 August 2022
11 October 2022
Accepted 29 October 2022
The authors gratefully thank the
reviewers who took the time to
review this article for
publication.
Declaration of conflicting
interests: The author(s)
declared no potential conflicts
of interest with respect to the
research, authorship and/or
publication of this study.
Funding: The author(s)
received no financial support
for the research, authorship
and/or publication of this
paper.
DOI 10.1108/JCP-06-2022-0018 VOL. 13 NO. 1 2023, pp. 1-17, ©Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2009-3829 jJOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY jPAGE 1
concealment, destruction or dismemberment of a victim’s body is an aggravating factor in
homicide cases (Criminal Justice Act, 2003). Homicides involving dismemberment are
relatively rare in the UK (Black et al.,2017). Between 2007 and 2016, 1% of homicides in
England and Wales recorded on the Homicide Index database maintained by the Home
Office involved dismemberment (Home Office, personal communication, November 14,
Home Office, 2016). The lowest number occurred in 2015–2016 when 0.7%, 4 out of 571
homicides involved dismemberment, compared to the highest number in 2013–2014 when
2%, 11 out of 520 homicides involved dismemberment. Despite the rarity, the far-reaching
consequences these acts have at both an individual and societal level mean a greater
understanding is necessary. Research in this area has potential to aid preventative
measures, thus reducing the rates of homicides involving dismemberment. In addition, the
rarity of such acts provides greater need for empirical sources to be available to draw on,
throughout investigativeprocesses.
Literature review
Review of the current evidence base highlighted a distinct lack of empirical research
relating to criminal dismemberment. Therefore, the following review includes international
case analyses, empirical research, textbooks and medicolegal reports. Early empirical
studies on dismemberment focused on offender motivations, rather than considering
offender, offence and victim characteristics. In addition, international research exploring
offender characteristics (Ha
¨kka
¨nen-Nyholm et al., 2009) or victim and offence
characteristics (Konopka et al.,2007) have involved small sample sizes. Review of the
existing evidence base highlighted a distinct lack of UK-based research, with international
studies having limited generalisability due to differences in criminal justice processes and
definitions of homicide.
Early research by Ziemke (1918, as cited in Ha
¨kka
¨nen-Nyholm et al.,2009) focused on the
motives for dismemberment, distinguishing between defensive and offensive motivations.
Defensive refers to acts motivated by the intention to move the victim’s body parts with
greater ease, prevent victim identification and avoid detection by the police. In contrast, an
offensive motivation is characterised by the dismemberment itself being the reason why the
offender committed the homicide. Offensive motivated dismemberment occurs due to an
extreme level of anger or resentment towards the victim, and a personal gratification or
need, such as a necrophilia, or an urge that can only be satisfied by dismembering the
victim’s body (Holmes, 2017).
Pu
¨schel and Koops (1987) further developed the distinction betwee n defensive and offensive
motives, through identification of additional motivations: agg ressive and necromaniac
motivations. Aggressive dismemberment is motivated by the offender’s emotions of anger and
rage, which can only be satisfied by dismembering the victim. Aggressi ve motivations can
also involve dismemberment as the cause of death. Alternatively, necromaniac m otivations are
characterised by the dismemberment of a certain body part after d eath, for a specific reason,
such as a trophy or keepsake for the offender.
More recently, Ha
¨kka
¨nen-Nyholm et al. (2009, p. 934) identified a fifth “psychotic”
motivation, specifically relating to the act of mutilation, in which “the motive relates to the
offender’s psychotic delusions”. In addition to identifying motives for mutilation, Ha
¨kka
¨nen-
Nyholm et al. (2009) also compared the characteristics of offenders who did and did not
mutilate a victim. Analysis of 13 Finish homicides found all offenders who engaged in
mutilation to have a psychiatric diagnosis and were more likely to have inpatient mental
health contacts than homicide offenders who did not engage in mutilation. Offenders who
engaged in mutilation also had adverse childhood experiences, including institutional or
foster home placement and mental health contact prior to the age of 18. Substance misuse
was found to be unrelated to the act of mutilation(Ha
¨kka
¨nen-Nyholm et al., 2009).
PAGE 2 jJOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY jVOL. 13 NO. 1 2023
To continue reading
Request your trial