Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1986 Page 30
manner, Steve Allen spent much of his first visit with Brian in the company of Serious
Israel, one of the senior members of the Love Family. In the case of a young woman
recruited by the Hare Krishnas in mid-1976, the parents described their visit nine days after
their daughter‘s call as ―devastating.‖
Frances‘ parents reasoned, pleaded, cajoled, ordered, shouted, cried -and
got nowhere. The only time the Ruftys glimpsed the Frances they had known
occurred when their daughter inquired, ―Aren‘t you going to kiss me good-
bye?‖ It was, Mrs. Rufty declares, ―awful‖ (Post, 1978, p. 6).
Whether or not visits took place, most parents set about to ―redeem‖ their child in some
way. Of the 49 ex-cult members in the 1979 and 1982 surveys, 31 left as a result of
involuntary deprogramming or deprogramming preceded by conservatorship power granted
by a court. Only six defected voluntarily. In the remaining cases, the means of leaving the
cult was through persuasion (often by another ex-cult member working with the parents or
through deprogramming not clearly associated with either involuntary removal or
conservatorship.
Deprogramming, and the attempt to use conservatorship statutes to retrieve children from
cults, have evoked much controversy, especially concerning the civil rights of cult members.
Conservatorships
In conservatorship proceedings, ―parents have alleged that their adult children are
incompetent to manage their own affairs as a result of being under ‗mind control‘ exercised
by cult leaders‖ (Schwartz &Zemel, 1980, p. 304). Although conservatorship and
guardianship powers have been more typically granted historically to families of elderly
persons, in recent years they have been extended in some jurisdictions to parents of cult
members. Once obtained, the court-sanctioned period of control is often used by parents to
attempt to deprogram their offspring. The ability of parents to get conservatorships and
guardianships, however, has varied widely from state to state and jurisdiction to
jurisdiction. Attempts by legislators in several states --California, Illinois, and New York, for
example --to draft special conservatorship laws to deal with cult involvement, have all
foundered, largely over constitutional objections: the adult cult member‘s civil rights and
the rights of religious groups to recruit and indoctrinate have generally carried more weight
than the state‘s interest in preventing deception and fraud or maintaining family stability.
Involuntary Deprogramming
Involuntary deprogramming, which frequently involves coerced removal from the group, has
sometimes been judged a criminal offense. Despite this, it appears that no family members
involved in such activity have been imprisoned, although some have been put on probation.
Non-family members associated with the abduction have received jail sentences, but usually
light ones. ―Deprogrammers prosecuted for kidnapping or false imprisonment have relied on
the necessity defense, which has traditionally exculpated defendants who violated a law in
order to avoid a greater evil than the law was designed to prevent‖ (Aronin, 1982, pp. 272-
273). Critical to such a defense, whether the alleged offense was committed by family
members or not, is demonstrating that ―the harm likely to be avoided clearly outweighed
the harm likely to be caused‖ (Aronin, 1982, p. 282). A second defense has been that the
removal occurred under duress --for example, fear that a family member was at risk of
death or serious injury (Aronin, 1982, p. 288). Some parents have viewed emotional
distress or ―mind manipulation‖ as indicative of such serious injury.
The parents who deprogrammed their children, whether successfully or not, saw this highly
controversial process as an undoing of what they perceived as cult ―programming.‖ (For
other observers, ―Deprogramming consists of seizing a person, isolating him from his
normal contacts, and barraging him with accusations, arguments, and threats until he
manner, Steve Allen spent much of his first visit with Brian in the company of Serious
Israel, one of the senior members of the Love Family. In the case of a young woman
recruited by the Hare Krishnas in mid-1976, the parents described their visit nine days after
their daughter‘s call as ―devastating.‖
Frances‘ parents reasoned, pleaded, cajoled, ordered, shouted, cried -and
got nowhere. The only time the Ruftys glimpsed the Frances they had known
occurred when their daughter inquired, ―Aren‘t you going to kiss me good-
bye?‖ It was, Mrs. Rufty declares, ―awful‖ (Post, 1978, p. 6).
Whether or not visits took place, most parents set about to ―redeem‖ their child in some
way. Of the 49 ex-cult members in the 1979 and 1982 surveys, 31 left as a result of
involuntary deprogramming or deprogramming preceded by conservatorship power granted
by a court. Only six defected voluntarily. In the remaining cases, the means of leaving the
cult was through persuasion (often by another ex-cult member working with the parents or
through deprogramming not clearly associated with either involuntary removal or
conservatorship.
Deprogramming, and the attempt to use conservatorship statutes to retrieve children from
cults, have evoked much controversy, especially concerning the civil rights of cult members.
Conservatorships
In conservatorship proceedings, ―parents have alleged that their adult children are
incompetent to manage their own affairs as a result of being under ‗mind control‘ exercised
by cult leaders‖ (Schwartz &Zemel, 1980, p. 304). Although conservatorship and
guardianship powers have been more typically granted historically to families of elderly
persons, in recent years they have been extended in some jurisdictions to parents of cult
members. Once obtained, the court-sanctioned period of control is often used by parents to
attempt to deprogram their offspring. The ability of parents to get conservatorships and
guardianships, however, has varied widely from state to state and jurisdiction to
jurisdiction. Attempts by legislators in several states --California, Illinois, and New York, for
example --to draft special conservatorship laws to deal with cult involvement, have all
foundered, largely over constitutional objections: the adult cult member‘s civil rights and
the rights of religious groups to recruit and indoctrinate have generally carried more weight
than the state‘s interest in preventing deception and fraud or maintaining family stability.
Involuntary Deprogramming
Involuntary deprogramming, which frequently involves coerced removal from the group, has
sometimes been judged a criminal offense. Despite this, it appears that no family members
involved in such activity have been imprisoned, although some have been put on probation.
Non-family members associated with the abduction have received jail sentences, but usually
light ones. ―Deprogrammers prosecuted for kidnapping or false imprisonment have relied on
the necessity defense, which has traditionally exculpated defendants who violated a law in
order to avoid a greater evil than the law was designed to prevent‖ (Aronin, 1982, pp. 272-
273). Critical to such a defense, whether the alleged offense was committed by family
members or not, is demonstrating that ―the harm likely to be avoided clearly outweighed
the harm likely to be caused‖ (Aronin, 1982, p. 282). A second defense has been that the
removal occurred under duress --for example, fear that a family member was at risk of
death or serious injury (Aronin, 1982, p. 288). Some parents have viewed emotional
distress or ―mind manipulation‖ as indicative of such serious injury.
The parents who deprogrammed their children, whether successfully or not, saw this highly
controversial process as an undoing of what they perceived as cult ―programming.‖ (For
other observers, ―Deprogramming consists of seizing a person, isolating him from his
normal contacts, and barraging him with accusations, arguments, and threats until he
