Stockholm Syndrome has been around since 1973 as a term and it has been debated strongly ever since. On one side, extremists say it doesn't exist. On the other, extremists love it because it absolves people they like or sympathize with from any guilt in any situation..nothing is anyones fault if that can establish "linkage" to any sort of abuse or sympathizing with oppressors.
The former look ridiculous because brainwashing is real. The latter look ridiculous when they say suicide bombers are victims of a powerful Islamic abuser-father figure. Or try and get 9 members of a gang doing a murder-rape off because they were all "victims" of the abuse and control of the Head Thug gang leader.
When Stockholm Syndrome is actually used in a criminal case as a defense, it's record is very mixed. Same with other "victimhood" strategies of avoiding personal culpability - (1)The abuse excuse; (2)The Nazi Defense "I just did what someone more powerful told me to do. No option to refuse."
Prosecutors and juries have to weigh the emotional and material inducements to collaborate in a crime with the accused's ability to know what they did was wrong and that they had alternatives other than participate.
In Hearst's famous case, they said she let emotions outweigh her knowledge se was breaking the law and could escape. In Canada's famous case, Carol Homulka said she helped her husband rape and kill 2 girls because she "feared abuse" if she didn't. Canadians say she was even more evil than her husband.
But generally, outside the spouses of criminals who "knew" but are not normally targeted by prosecutors - diminished capacity arguments only factor into mitigation of sentence, and are not exonorating in and of themselves.
In the Michael Devlin, Shawn Hornbeck relation -
It is in one way outside the criminal sphere but something many, many people will question on a moral level - why he didn't escape and if he had grown attached to his captor. PC people may scream that that is totally reprehensible, disgusting, out of bounds ----but I daresay half of Hornbecks future schoolmates and neighbors will wonder on that point.
In the other way, it is criminal in the relationship did involve Shawn Hornbeck actively participating in a high felony. Kidnapping. And actively restrained the boy later in his captivity when Devlin went to manage his pizza place. That we know and the DA has to decide on charges being made on Hornbeck, or excused. Because if no charges are brought for "sensitivity's sake", you can be sure Devlin's lawyers will question discriminatory application of the law.
The other matter is if Hornbeck participated in the sexual abuse of the kidnapped boy, or other missing kids...or somehow assisted Devlin in Devlin sexually assaulting the boy.
As of now, the details of the kidnapping and exactly what Devlin and Hornbeck did afterwards is not known. People should avoid presumptions either way.
Right now O'Reilly is being pilloried much as feminist defenders of Carol Homulka pilloried Canadian prosecutors for "further victimizing" an abused woman.
Then the videos came into evidence showing just how much Homulka was an active, eager, enthusiastic participant in the rape-torturing sessions of the girls and all her tears in court about past beatings and being a victim of the Stockholm Syndrome cut much of her feminist support and nearly all support from mainstream Canadians.
With O'Reilly, he is saying new evidence could come in, and people should avoid presuming about Hornbeck one way or the other.
Many lawyers agree. Sometimes cases are not what they seem, and excess emotionalism leads to Muslim roundups on thin evidence, OJ acquittals, and McMartin Preschool witch hunt convictions.
Cedarford | 02.09.07 - 8:09 pm | #
2 comments:
Michael Devlin has only been charged with holding Shawn against his will until November 30, 2002. Was Shawn's identity so torn apart after that time that he didn't leave? Who knows! However, if Shawn is not charged questions need to be raised about that 16-year-old boy. Do you remember Malvo? He was only 16 at the time and was completely under his stepfathers control during their shooting spree. Yet the world had no sympathy for this boy and nobody cried “Stockholm Syndrome” when he was sent to prison. I do feel for Shawn. But come on! Are we to believe that Shawn completely lost perception of right from wrong? Shawn knew assisting in Ben’s kidnapping and holding him captive was wrong. Yet he did nothing to stop it. I don’t know why this topic angers me but when I think about the similarities between the Malvo case it just does. I hope Malvo is getting mental treatment in prison that he so desperately in need of while Shawn is enjoying his new home.
Michael Devlin has only been charged with holding Shawn against his will until November 30, 2002. Was Shawn's identity so torn apart after that time that he didn't leave? Who knows! However, if Shawn is not charged questions need to be raised about that 16-year-old boy. Do you remember Malvo? He was only 16 at the time and was completely under his stepfathers control during their shooting spree. Yet the world had no sympathy for this boy and nobody cried “Stockholm Syndrome” when he was sent to prison. I do feel for Shawn. But come on! Are we to believe that Shawn completely lost perception of right from wrong? Shawn knew assisting in Ben’s kidnapping and holding him captive was wrong. Yet he did nothing to stop it. I don’t know why this topic angers me but when I think about the similarities between the Malvo case it just does. I hope Malvo is getting mental treatment in prison that he so desperately in need of while Shawn is enjoying his new home.
Post a Comment