NCJ Number
37231
Journal
UMKC LAW REVIEW, F 44 Issue: 3 Dated: (SPRING 1976) Pages: 438-479
Date Published
1976
Length
41 pages
Annotation
THIS PAPER DEALS WITH SOME OF THE COMPLEX LEGAL, PHILOSOPHICAL, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE USE OF BRAINWASHING AS A CRIMINAL DEFENSE IN UNITED STATES V HEARST.
Abstract
A TWO-PRONGED APPROACH, PSYCHOLOGICAL AND LEGAL, IS USED TO ISOLATE INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS. THE PAPER BEGINS WITH AN ANALYSIS OF THE PSYCHOLOGY OF BRAINWASHING TO DETERMINE WHAT IT IS; HOW IT IS ACCOMPLISHED; AND THE PSYCHODYNAMICS OF BRAINWASHING, SURVEYING MANY APPROACHES AND ANALYSES, AS WELL AS WHETHER IT REALLY WORKS AND HOW LONG THE EFFECTS LAST. NEXT, BRAINWASHING IS ANALYZED AS THE BASIS FOR A NEW CRIMINAL DEFENSE THEORY. SPECIFIC RECOGNIZED DEFENSES ARE CONSIDERED AS A BASIS FOR THE BRAINWASHING DEFENSE, INCLUDING INSANITY; PARTIAL AND DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY; IGNORANCE AND MISTAKE OF FACT AND LAW; DURESS AND INVOLUNTARY ACTION; AND INTOXICATION. THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT EXISTING, RECOGNIZED DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT MAY OVERLAP BRAINWASHING IN SUFFICIENT DEPTH TO ALLOW THE VICTIMIZED DEFENDANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ONE OF THEM. HE SUGGESTS THAT BRAINWASHING STANDING ALONE SHOULD BE TREATED AS A MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE TO BE CONSIDERED AT SENTENCING RATHER THAN AS A DEFENSE.