Brainwashing: Difference between revisions

The concept of brainwashing has been raised in the defense of criminal charges. In United States v. Fishman (1990) [[Steven Fishman]] was a member of the [[Church of Scientology]] when, between 1983 and 1988, he conducted a fraudulent scheme to sue large corporations via conspiring with minority stockholders in shareholder class action lawsuits. Afterwards, Fishman would sign settlements that left those stockholders empty-handed. Two months after being indicted on 11 counts of mail fraud, Fishman's attorney notified the court that they intended to rely on an [[insanity defense]], using the theories of brainwashing and the expert witnesses of [[Margaret Singer]] and [[Richard Ofshe]] to imply that the [[Church of Scientology]] had practiced brainwashing on him and those practices left him unsuitable to make independent decisions. The court ruled that the use of brainwashing theories is inadmissible in expert witnesses, citing the [[Frye standard]], which states that scientific theories utilized by expert witnesses must be generally accepted in their respective fields.<ref>{{cite web |title=United States v. Fishman (1990) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/743/713/2593631/ |website=Justia}}</ref>

It has also been raised in child custody cases.<ref>[[Richard Warshak|Warshak, R. A.]] (2010). ''Divorce Poison: How to Protect Your Family from Bad-mouthing and Brainwashing''. New York: Harper Collins.</ref><ref>Richardson, James T. ''Regulating Religion: Case Studies from Around the Globe'', Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers 2004, p. 16, {{ISBN|978-0-306-47887-1}}.</ref> Families of cult followers have attempted to utilize brainwashing theories to satisfy [[conservatorship]] statutory guidelines. [[Conservatorship]] is a court case in the United States that grants a responsible person custody over another adult who cannot care for herself or himself, either financially and/or in daily life, due to physical and/or mental limitations. Typically, [[conservatorship]] cases involved the elderly, mainly those suffering from dementia-related illnesses. However, [[conservatorship]] cases involving younger adults and their participation in new religious movements increased during the mid-1970s, with many of those U.S. judges granting temporary conservatorships to family members of cult followers. The usage of brainwashing theories in conservatorship cases was deemed inadmissible as a result of the ''Katz v. Superior Court (1977)'' ruling. The ruling implied that the statutory guideline for conservatorships only referred to "needs of health, food, clothing, and shelter" and that investigating if conversion is "induced by faith or by coercive persuasion is ... not in turn investigating and questioning the validity of that faith." <ref>{{cite web |last1=Bernick |first1=Michael |title=To Keep Them Out of Harm's Way? Temporary Conservatorships and Religious Sects |url=https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2365&context=californialawreview}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/73/952.html |website=Justia}}</ref>