What Makes Jodi Arias Tick?

Jodi Arias’ mugshot

After my post earlier this week comparing the trials of Amanda Knox, Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias, one of our  readers and friends, writer Carolyn Quinn, asked if we could provide a full assessment of Ms. Arias, who is currently awaiting an Arizona jury’s verdict on whether she should be executed or imprisoned for life for the brutal murder of her former lover Travis Alexander.

While it is risky to attempt a full psychological assessment of anyone from afar, there are several things we can say with reasonable certainty based on her established behavior.

Let’s take the broad definition first. Arias is what we have long referred to as a sociopath, or sometimes a psychopath. DSM-IV, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, replaced the term for this condition with “anti-social personality disorder,” though we think that sounds a bit mild for what it represents.

Whatever you call it, it is characterized by “a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.” Sociopathy should not be confused with psychosis, which implies some degree of loss of contact with reality.

To complicate things a bit further, Arias can also be described by another DSM term: “borderline personality,” so called because it is thought to be on the borderline between neurosis and psychosis. This makes sense when we consider that all mental disorders run somewhere along a continuum. For example, someone who is always alert for people out to get him may have few or no other misperceptions of reality, whereas a paranoid schizophrenic may hallucinate and hear voices and very definitely qualify as a full-fledged psychotic.

Someone like Arias, on the other hand, certainly understands reality, and more to the point, understands the distinction between right and wrong. She just doesn’t care. This is what we often call a “character disorder.”

So what does all of this actually mean? Well, the easiest way to summarize what is admittedly a fairly complex subject, is to enumerate some of the characteristics we would expect to see.

The first is narcissism. Again, this trait will lie along a continuum, but in extreme instances like this one, it manifests as a total involvement with self to the exclusion of consideration for others. This goes hand-in-hand with a total disregard for the truth. For these types, truth is a commodity rather than an absolute; that is, it is a tool to achieve an end. And if that end is better served with a lie, that is a completely acceptable “moral” choice.

That is why it was so easy for Arias to go from a total lie about even being at the murder scene to eventually conceding she had committed the murder when confronted with overwhelming evidence. But even then, she had to lie about motive, saying it was self-defense after Alexander abused her. She had to change her story yet again to cover the fact that she had shot him in the head and stabbed him many times while he was defenseless in the shower.

Even during her extensive trial testimony, she was in a continual mode of having to say essentially, “I know I lied in the past, but I’m telling the truth now,” updating this statement as necessary.

I put “moral” in quotes in an earlier paragraph because that leads to the second characteristic, which is that there is no morality for this individual other than what is best for her. Other people have no rights.

A third characteristic is actually a modus operandi, and that is manipulation. These people are very good at manipulating those around them to achieve their own ends. It is therefore wholly understandable that Arias decided to take the stand in her own defense. Based on her previous experiences, she probably had perfect confidence in her ability to manipulate the prosecutor and jury to her own ends. Then, in the sentencing phase, she was able to jump smoothly from announcing to the media that she wanted to die, only to beg the jury to spare her life a few days later.

And a fourth – a perfect fit with what has preceded – is a projection onto others for all of their own faults and flaws. She killed Travis because of what he was doing to her, not Jodi’s own rage over being dumped. She wanted to be spared the death penalty not for herself, but because of what it would do to her family. She further played on the jury’s sympathy by enumerating all of the things she wouldn’t be able to do now, like get married, have a baby or even attend her sister’s wedding, as if it was the jury’s fault and its members therefore had to “make it up to her” by sparing her life.

So, finally, is Jodi Arias sorry? You bet she is. She’s sorry she got caught and blamed and that this is going to mess up the rest of her life. Because in the world of Jodi Arias and her like, that is all that matters.

•