Alabama Law Scholarly Commons Articles Faculty Scholarship 1977 Religious Totalism: Gentle and Ungentle Persuasion under the First Amendment Richard Delgado University of Alabama - School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.ua.edu/fac_articles Recommended Citation Richard Delgado, Religious Totalism: Gentle and Ungentle Persuasion under the First Amendment, 51 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1 (1977). Available at: https://scholarship.law.ua.edu/fac_articles/403 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Alabama Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Alabama Law Scholarly Commons. RELIGIOUS TOTALISM: GENTLE AND UNGENTLE PERSUASION UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT* RICHARD DELGADO** TABLE OF CONTENTS I. REGULATION OF RELIGION-BASED PROSELYTIZING: FIRST AMENDMENT LIMITATIONS ............................... 9 A. THE STATE'S INTEREST ................................................. 10 1. Harms to the Individual.......................................... 10 a. Precipitationof psychiatric and physical disorders... 10 (i) Psychiatricdisorders ................................. 10 (ii) Guilt, suicide, and self-mutilation................. 16 (iii) Maturationalarrest ................................... 17 (iv) Physicaldisease and injury ......................... 19 b. Impairment of autonomy ................................... 21 2. SocietalHarms .................................................... 25 a. Harm to the family as an institution...................... 26 b. Conflict with social and legal norms ..................... 31 c. Potentialforviolence ................................. 33 d. Aftereffects of the cult experience-socialimpact .... 35 B. THE CULT'S INTEREST .................................................. 36 1. Honesty and Sincerity ............................................ 38 a. Deception in the recruitmentprocess ..................... 38 * The author gratefully acknowledges the support afforded him by the Program in Law, Science & Medicine at Yale Law School, where a portion of the research leading to this Article was completed. In addition, thanks are due the following individuals for assistance rendered at different points during the preparation of the manuscript: Professor Michael H. Shapiro, University of Southern California Law Center, who discussed the problem of brainwashing with me and made many trenchant comments and suggestions; Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, Professor of Psychiatry, Yale Medical School, who helped me to understand the psychology of totalism; and Professor William Powers, University of Washington Law School, who made a number of suggestions in connection with my treatment of consent and identity change. Throughout this Article, reference to confidential sources has been indicated by omitting names or reducing names to initials. Other sources containing confidential information have been retained on file with the author. For the protection and privacy of the individuals concerned, the author assumes sole responsibility for the content of interviews granted and letters sent or forwarded to the author and other confidential material on file with the author. ** Assistant Professor of Law, University of Washington. B.A. 1960, University of Washington; J.D. 1974, University of California, Berkeley. 2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 51:1 b. Deception in other areas .................................... 41 c. Insincerity arisingfrom an admixture of secular andreligious aims ............................................. 42 (i) Politicalobjectives ..................................... 42 (ii) Economic aims ......................................... 44 2. Centrality-TheRequirement of a Core Belief ............. 46 3. Promotion of Values Fundamental to the First Amendment ......................................................... 47 4. Correspondencewith SocietalNorms ........................ 48 II. PATERNALISM AND CONSENT-LIMITATIONS ON THE DECISION TO JOIN BASED ON VOLUNTARINESS .... 49 A. TRADITIONAL FACTORS ................................................. 50 1. Coercion and Duress ............................................. 50 2. Deception............................................................ 52 3. Physicaland Mental Debilitation.............................. 53 4. Abuse of a FiduciaryCapacity ................................. 53 B. FACTORS PECULIAR TO RELIGIOUS CULTS .......................... 54 1. Manipulationof Knowledge and Capacity .................. 54 2. Segmentation of the JoiningProcess .......................... 55 C. ASSESSING VOLUNTARINESS: IDENTITY CHANGE AND THE ACQUIESCENT INDOCTRINEE ........................................... 57 III. THE BOUNDS OF INTERVENTION-PRINCIPLES OF EXCLUSION AND INCLUSION ....................................... 62 A. ON DRAWING THE LINE ................................................. 63 B. THE CULT INDOCTRINEE SYNDROME: TYPE I AND TYPE II ERROR ............................................................ 69 IV. REMEDIES .................................................................... 73 A. PREVENTIVE REMEDIES ................................................. 73 1. Identification ....................................................... 73 2. "Cooling-off"Period............................................. 74 3. PublicEducation .................................................. 74 4. Prohibitionof Proselytizingby CertainGroups ............ 75 5. Licensing ............................................................ 76 6. Request forRescue ................................................ 77 B. POST-INDUCTION REMEDIES ........................................... 78 1. Self-Help and Deprogramming................................. 78 a. The defense of necessity .................................... 83 b. Assessment of deprogramming........................... 85 2. Conservatorshipand Guardianship ........................... 88 3. A Contract-BasedRemedy-Mutual "Reassessments". 91 4. Remedies Against the Cult or Cult Leaders ................. 92 a. Civil remedies ................................................. 92 (i) Tort actions ............................................. 92 (ii) Actions for the return of money or objects donated to the cult ..................................... 94 b. Criminalremedies ........................................... 95 CONCLUSION ............................................................... 97 1977] RELIGIOUS TOTALISM Charges that religious or pseudo-religious organizations abuse mind control techniques have become increasingly insistent in recent years. If behavior- control technology is powerful enough, when applied by the state, to raise constitutional "right to treatment"' and "right against treatment" 2 issues in cases involving prisoners and mental patients, it is not surprising that these same techniques, which have also proven of interest to criminal and extrem- ist groups and to belligerents during wartime, generate similar controversy 3 when utilized by these latter groups. "Brainwashing" has been asserted as a defense to charges of violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice by American prisoners of war following the Korean conflict.4 In the last few years, it has also made its 1. Cf. Knecht v. Gillman, 488 F.2d 1136, 1140-41 (8th Cir. 1973) (setting out procedures under which inmates may consent to aversion type therapy (drug-induced vomiting)); CAL. PENAL CODE §§ 2670-2680 (West Supp. 1977) (setting forth conditions under which prisoners and other institutionalized persons may consent to organic treatments); CAL. WELF. & INST. CODE §§ 5325-5326 (West Supp. 1977) (same); Shapiro, Legislating the Control of Behavior Control: Autonomy and the Coercive Use of OrganicTherapies, 47S. CAL. L. REV. 237,311-15, 326 n.309 (1974) (examining the concept of capacity necessary for informed consent and discussing the right to treatment) [hereinafter cited as Shapiro, Legislating Control]. The right to treatment has been derived from a number of constitutional rights, including autonomy and freedom of mentation, id. at 255-76, the eighth amendment, Martinez v. Mancusi, 443 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir. 1970), and due process or equal protection, see Rouse v. Cameron, 373 F.2d 451, 453 (D.C. Cir. 1966); Comment, A Jam in the Revolving Door: A Prisoner'sRighttoRehabilita- tion, 60 GEO. L.J. 225, 237-43 (1971). For those statutes relating to the goals of particular institutions, see id. at 236 n.76. Cf. National Comm'n for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Research Involving Prisoners: Report and Recommenda- tions 9 (draft, June 23, 1976) (prisoners may consent to or refuse medical treatment). 2. See, e.g., CAL. PENAL CODE § 2670 (West Supp. 1977); Shapiro, Legislating Control, supra note 1, at 316-20; Wexler, Reflections on the Legal Regulation of BehaviorModification in InstitutionalSettings, 17 ARIz. L. REV. 132 (1975); cf. Kaimowitz v. Department of Mental Health, No. 73-19434-AW (Wayne County, Mich., Cir. Ct. July 10, 1973) ("involuntarily detained mental patients cannot give informed and adequate consent to experimental psychosurgical procedures on the brain"). See generally Gobert, Psychosurgery, Conditioning, and the Prisoner'sRight To Refuse "Rehabilitation," 61 VA. L. REV. 155, 179-96 (1975). 3. This Article focuses on the problems posed by extremist religious sects not engaged in activity clearly criminal; a future Article will treat the problem