Ultimate case of brainwashing

[medved]

The question of brainwashing comes up once in a rare while in criminal cases.

In the case of heiress Patty Hearst, there was overwhelming evidence that brainwashing was in play and that what actually happened in the courtroom was one of the worst miscarriages of justice in American history. Jimmy Carter eventually commutted Hearst's sentence to time served after about a year and a half and saw to it that Slick Klintler finally pardoned her amidst the final flurry of pardoning everybody else on his way out the door. Nonetheless the jury had refused to buy the idea despite good evidence.

Then there's the case of Karla Homolka in Canada which is a horrific can of worms and a source of endless heated arguments up there. In my estimation brainwashing was also in play. Experts noted that the one document which came closest to explaining what was happening in that one was the United States FBI CVSS (Compliant Victims of the Sexual Sadist) study document:

http://www.karlykurls.com/cvss/CVSS.htm

The closest thing I've ever seen to a meaningful statement on the Homolka case is this:

http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/law/Courses/McGillivray/Karla_Homolka.html

which mentions the CVSS document at several points.

But the strangest of all such stories has to be this one:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/sex_slave/index.html?sect=19

in which a captured sex slave had become so thoroughly conditioned that her captors could allow her time off to visit her family, AND SHE'D COME BACK TO THEM!!

It might even be that those studies explain some of the control which Slick Klintler seemed to have over demokkkrat women...

[Eagle1]

conditioning is a sticky situation. just like the woman who will travel from abusive relationship to abusive relationship, some people cant imagine that there is anything better out there for themselves, or if there is they dont deserve it.

but someone under that kind of control is still at fault for any illegal actions they may commit

[medved]

...but someone under that kind of control is still at fault for any illegal actions they may commit

That's problematical. Patty Hearst in my estimation was not responsible for her actions in the crimes she was convicted of. Very weird sort of phenomenon...

[Eagle1]

it is very subjective, but this could be the new insanity defense

[ThomasMore]

I am skeptical of "brainwashing" arguments, because they relieve people of moral responsibility of their actions. That should not be done lightly.

Is it possible that continuous abuse could render someone incapable of moral distinctions? That the victim can no longer distinguish right from wrong or can no longer control impulses? I am sure that it is possible.

Even if a victim of abuse could establish such a result in his defense, the analysis should not end there.

How did the victim get into the situation? If it was willingly, with some apprehension of what he was getting into, then he is still responsible for placing himself in the situation.

Intoxication by alcohol or drugs is an apt analogy. A person can become so intoxicated that his judgment is gone, he gets into a car and kills someone. He is responsible because he chose to get drunk, even if in his intoxication he could no longer use the judgment not to get into the car.

If someone willingly enters into an abusive relationship, or willingly stays in an abusive relationship, then he is responsible for the results, including his own impairment from the abuse.

If a person's moral sense is destroyed by abuse, and the person was truly surprised and trapped in the abuse with no opportunity to escape, then there might be a legitimate argument to hold him not responsible for his actions.

Patty Hearst, apparently the victim of kidnapping, repeated rapes and other abuses, might have been such an example.