Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1998, page 8
upon members of his Ministry where intercourse was part of the creed of their church. In
State v. Ryan,54 a Nebraska court affirmed the murder conviction of a leader of a religious
cult, described as both a cult and a band of criminals, upon review of factual detail of
torture and sexual abuse. And, in Conrad v. Hazen,55 a New Hampshire court let stand a
prosecution on charges of sexual abuse by a former cult member against another member.
Recently, a civil jury awarded an ex-follower of a New Age yoga center nearly $1.9 million
after concluding that the spiritual leader forced her to have intercourse with him on frequent
occasions.56
When cult-rape victims are forced into unwanted sexual intercourse, they may not indicate
their lack of consent by their words or acts. Therefore, a prosecutor would have the
daunting task of establishing that the cult-rape victim lacked consent even though her
words and acts falsely indicated consent.
In order to establish that the cult-rape victim acquiesced only because of the thought
reform used by the cult organization, prosecutors could draw on established law in their
states. A prosecutor in Ohio, for instance, could attempt to rely on the rule of law which
provides, the “element of force is established if the ...the victim‟s will was overborne by
fear or duress ...force need not be overt or physically brutal[, but] can be subtle and
psychological.”57 Or, a prosecutor in Minnesota could draw on the state statute that defines
coercion as “words or circumstances that cause the complainant reasonably to fear that the
actor will inflict bodily harm upon, or hold in confinement, the complainant or another, or
force the complainant to submit to sexual penetration or contact, but proof of coercion does
not require proof of a specific act or threat.”58 But even if the laws are facially broad enough
to encompass thought reform, courts may not be willing to apply such laws to cult-rape
victims if they do not accept the fundamental premise that thought reform in cults exists.
There may be more successful rape prosecutions against cult members in courts that
recognize that religious cults use thought reform processes to attract and retain members.
For example, a Minnesota court, in Peterson v. Sorlien, found a “reasonable basis” existed
for the “deprogrammers” to fear for the cult members‟ physical and emotional well-being.
The highest court of Minnesota accepted as truthful the testimony in the court below
illustrating the cult‟s method of recruitment and “programmed manipulation [which was]
devised to allay the suspicions and anesthetize the rational processes of its targets.”59
Specifically, the court held that parents of a cult member were not liable for false
imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress in their good faith beliefs to
prompt her disaffiliation from a religious organization.
But not all courts have accepted the premise that cults impose mind control. For instance,
in United States v. Fishman, a California federal court excluded proffered testimony by
experts, including that of Dr. Singer, because the Court was not convinced that the
application of coercive persuasion theory to religious cults was widely accepted in the
medical community.60 Dr. Singer and others sought to testify that the defendant was under
the influence of the Church of Scientology to the extent that the church manipulated him to
commit mail fraud for a period of years.61
The Fishman court recognized the historical underpinnings of the theory of coercive
persuasion as having its beginnings in studies of American prisoners of war during the
Korean conflict in the 1950s. At that time, researchers sought to explain why some of the
captives adopted the “belief system of their captors,” and had concluded that “the free will
and judgment of these prisoners had been overborne by sophisticated techniques of mind
control or „brainwashing.‟”62 Nonetheless, the Fishman court did not accept the coercive
persuasion theory in the context of cults.63
In addition, courts are reluctant to embrace the application of coercive persuasion theory to
cults for reasons of freedom of religion under the federal and state Constitutions. A New
upon members of his Ministry where intercourse was part of the creed of their church. In
State v. Ryan,54 a Nebraska court affirmed the murder conviction of a leader of a religious
cult, described as both a cult and a band of criminals, upon review of factual detail of
torture and sexual abuse. And, in Conrad v. Hazen,55 a New Hampshire court let stand a
prosecution on charges of sexual abuse by a former cult member against another member.
Recently, a civil jury awarded an ex-follower of a New Age yoga center nearly $1.9 million
after concluding that the spiritual leader forced her to have intercourse with him on frequent
occasions.56
When cult-rape victims are forced into unwanted sexual intercourse, they may not indicate
their lack of consent by their words or acts. Therefore, a prosecutor would have the
daunting task of establishing that the cult-rape victim lacked consent even though her
words and acts falsely indicated consent.
In order to establish that the cult-rape victim acquiesced only because of the thought
reform used by the cult organization, prosecutors could draw on established law in their
states. A prosecutor in Ohio, for instance, could attempt to rely on the rule of law which
provides, the “element of force is established if the ...the victim‟s will was overborne by
fear or duress ...force need not be overt or physically brutal[, but] can be subtle and
psychological.”57 Or, a prosecutor in Minnesota could draw on the state statute that defines
coercion as “words or circumstances that cause the complainant reasonably to fear that the
actor will inflict bodily harm upon, or hold in confinement, the complainant or another, or
force the complainant to submit to sexual penetration or contact, but proof of coercion does
not require proof of a specific act or threat.”58 But even if the laws are facially broad enough
to encompass thought reform, courts may not be willing to apply such laws to cult-rape
victims if they do not accept the fundamental premise that thought reform in cults exists.
There may be more successful rape prosecutions against cult members in courts that
recognize that religious cults use thought reform processes to attract and retain members.
For example, a Minnesota court, in Peterson v. Sorlien, found a “reasonable basis” existed
for the “deprogrammers” to fear for the cult members‟ physical and emotional well-being.
The highest court of Minnesota accepted as truthful the testimony in the court below
illustrating the cult‟s method of recruitment and “programmed manipulation [which was]
devised to allay the suspicions and anesthetize the rational processes of its targets.”59
Specifically, the court held that parents of a cult member were not liable for false
imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress in their good faith beliefs to
prompt her disaffiliation from a religious organization.
But not all courts have accepted the premise that cults impose mind control. For instance,
in United States v. Fishman, a California federal court excluded proffered testimony by
experts, including that of Dr. Singer, because the Court was not convinced that the
application of coercive persuasion theory to religious cults was widely accepted in the
medical community.60 Dr. Singer and others sought to testify that the defendant was under
the influence of the Church of Scientology to the extent that the church manipulated him to
commit mail fraud for a period of years.61
The Fishman court recognized the historical underpinnings of the theory of coercive
persuasion as having its beginnings in studies of American prisoners of war during the
Korean conflict in the 1950s. At that time, researchers sought to explain why some of the
captives adopted the “belief system of their captors,” and had concluded that “the free will
and judgment of these prisoners had been overborne by sophisticated techniques of mind
control or „brainwashing.‟”62 Nonetheless, the Fishman court did not accept the coercive
persuasion theory in the context of cults.63
In addition, courts are reluctant to embrace the application of coercive persuasion theory to
cults for reasons of freedom of religion under the federal and state Constitutions. A New
