28 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 8, 2017
expertise.
77F
78 Courts should attempt to
determine the extent to which current
members can testify truthfully, especially if
that testimony causes harm to the group
itself.
78F
79 Similarly, courts should strive to
ascertain whether former members are
willing to speak truthfully, even if doing so
benefits the group’s position. In other words,
courts will attempt to ascertain whether both
types of witnesses are credible and free to
speak truthfully without fear of group
reprisal.
79F
80 Hearsay is generally
inadmissible, but experts are able to provide
opinion evidence as insight into groups’
structures, beliefs, and practices. The court
will judge the quality of the evidence by the
experts’ research methodology, their use of
current and former members, their
relationships with either the groups or their
former members, the length and depth of
contact with the groups, peer-reviewed
publications, and so on. Biased data
collection is likely to get experts’
testimonies ignored or rejected.
Furthermore, many of the groups in which
abuse occurs create another hurdle to
prosecution. As sociologist of religion and
lawyer James T. Richardson indicated:
[t]he communal, sectarian, and often isolated
nature of the groups in question makes it very
difficult for authorities to gather the information
78 Stephen J. Ceci and Helene Hembrooke (Eds.), 1998, Expert
Witnesses in Child Abuse Cases: What Can and Should Be Said in
Court (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association).
79 In W 42 In the High Court of Justice, Family Division, 1995
(which was a child custody case that pitted a nonmember
grandmother fighting for custody of her grandchild against her
daughter, who was a member of the Children of God/The Family),
Chief Justice Ward outlined his initial cautions about being
deceived by either side (p. 5), but was compelled to provide a long,
detailed list of deceptions, prevarications, and lies that current
members told on the witness stand (pp. 13–14), followed by
specific criticisms of current members’ credibility (pp. 14, 22, 24–
25, 41, 81, 83). Alternatively, key former-member witnesses
impressed him with their objectivity and honesty (pp. 30–31, 38–
39, 47).
80 See Stephen A. Kent, 1994, “Misattribution and Social Control
in the Children of God,” Journal of Religion and Health, (33)1, 41.
needed to assess grievance claims. Current laws
dealing with child abuse are based on the
assumption that the claims can be readily
investigated through social contacts: using
corroborating testimony of teachers, neighbors,
or friends of the family. Child abuse laws,
moreover, assume a reasonable degree of
cooperation on the part of the accused.
80F
81
As Richardson realized, however, often
groups do not cooperate.
81F
82
Even if groups do cooperate, authorities may
encounter statute-of-limitation restrictions.
They also may discover that groups
themselves may have investigated
allegations before calling authorities,
thereby inadvertently allowing perpetrators
to hide or destroy evidence. In a trial itself, a
risk always exists that cross-examination
will find that key witnesses are unreliable or
biased, or that a child cannot understand
important questions.
The cumulative effect of the above factors
motivates prosecutors’ and plaintiffs’
counsel to avoid trial. If prosecutors can
obtain some accountability for their
clients/the victims, then it is likely the
prosecutors will encourage their clients to
settle for certainty rather than risk the
expensive uncertainties of trial. A complete
loss at trial for either side may have a
devastating impact.
82F
83 We argue, however,
81 James T. Richardson, 1999, “Social Control of New Religions:
From ‘Brainwashing’ Claims to Child Sex Abuse Accusations.” In
Susan J. Palmer and Charlotte E. Hardman (Eds.), Children in New
Religions (p. 182) (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press).
82 Richardson, 1999, p. 182.
83 Two convictions against preacher Tony Alamo have led to the
dismantlement of a substantial portion of his organization’s
property. In November 2009, he was convicted on 10 counts to 175
years in jail for transporting five underage girls across state lines
for the purposes of sex. In January 2010, a judge ruled that Alamo
owed the victims $42.5 million in restitution, which he did not pay.
Consequently, in mid-June 2013, the American federal government
filed a suit to obtain Alamo’s properties in Arkansas to obtain
payment for the victims. Making matters worse for him and his
ministry, in early 2014, an Arkansas judge awarded $525 million
to seven women who alleged abuse by him after his church failed
to respond to their lawsuit. He also owed $30 million to two men
who, as youths raised in his group, experienced beatings,
expertise.
77F
78 Courts should attempt to
determine the extent to which current
members can testify truthfully, especially if
that testimony causes harm to the group
itself.
78F
79 Similarly, courts should strive to
ascertain whether former members are
willing to speak truthfully, even if doing so
benefits the group’s position. In other words,
courts will attempt to ascertain whether both
types of witnesses are credible and free to
speak truthfully without fear of group
reprisal.
79F
80 Hearsay is generally
inadmissible, but experts are able to provide
opinion evidence as insight into groups’
structures, beliefs, and practices. The court
will judge the quality of the evidence by the
experts’ research methodology, their use of
current and former members, their
relationships with either the groups or their
former members, the length and depth of
contact with the groups, peer-reviewed
publications, and so on. Biased data
collection is likely to get experts’
testimonies ignored or rejected.
Furthermore, many of the groups in which
abuse occurs create another hurdle to
prosecution. As sociologist of religion and
lawyer James T. Richardson indicated:
[t]he communal, sectarian, and often isolated
nature of the groups in question makes it very
difficult for authorities to gather the information
78 Stephen J. Ceci and Helene Hembrooke (Eds.), 1998, Expert
Witnesses in Child Abuse Cases: What Can and Should Be Said in
Court (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association).
79 In W 42 In the High Court of Justice, Family Division, 1995
(which was a child custody case that pitted a nonmember
grandmother fighting for custody of her grandchild against her
daughter, who was a member of the Children of God/The Family),
Chief Justice Ward outlined his initial cautions about being
deceived by either side (p. 5), but was compelled to provide a long,
detailed list of deceptions, prevarications, and lies that current
members told on the witness stand (pp. 13–14), followed by
specific criticisms of current members’ credibility (pp. 14, 22, 24–
25, 41, 81, 83). Alternatively, key former-member witnesses
impressed him with their objectivity and honesty (pp. 30–31, 38–
39, 47).
80 See Stephen A. Kent, 1994, “Misattribution and Social Control
in the Children of God,” Journal of Religion and Health, (33)1, 41.
needed to assess grievance claims. Current laws
dealing with child abuse are based on the
assumption that the claims can be readily
investigated through social contacts: using
corroborating testimony of teachers, neighbors,
or friends of the family. Child abuse laws,
moreover, assume a reasonable degree of
cooperation on the part of the accused.
80F
81
As Richardson realized, however, often
groups do not cooperate.
81F
82
Even if groups do cooperate, authorities may
encounter statute-of-limitation restrictions.
They also may discover that groups
themselves may have investigated
allegations before calling authorities,
thereby inadvertently allowing perpetrators
to hide or destroy evidence. In a trial itself, a
risk always exists that cross-examination
will find that key witnesses are unreliable or
biased, or that a child cannot understand
important questions.
The cumulative effect of the above factors
motivates prosecutors’ and plaintiffs’
counsel to avoid trial. If prosecutors can
obtain some accountability for their
clients/the victims, then it is likely the
prosecutors will encourage their clients to
settle for certainty rather than risk the
expensive uncertainties of trial. A complete
loss at trial for either side may have a
devastating impact.
82F
83 We argue, however,
81 James T. Richardson, 1999, “Social Control of New Religions:
From ‘Brainwashing’ Claims to Child Sex Abuse Accusations.” In
Susan J. Palmer and Charlotte E. Hardman (Eds.), Children in New
Religions (p. 182) (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press).
82 Richardson, 1999, p. 182.
83 Two convictions against preacher Tony Alamo have led to the
dismantlement of a substantial portion of his organization’s
property. In November 2009, he was convicted on 10 counts to 175
years in jail for transporting five underage girls across state lines
for the purposes of sex. In January 2010, a judge ruled that Alamo
owed the victims $42.5 million in restitution, which he did not pay.
Consequently, in mid-June 2013, the American federal government
filed a suit to obtain Alamo’s properties in Arkansas to obtain
payment for the victims. Making matters worse for him and his
ministry, in early 2014, an Arkansas judge awarded $525 million
to seven women who alleged abuse by him after his church failed
to respond to their lawsuit. He also owed $30 million to two men
who, as youths raised in his group, experienced beatings,
