Legal Implications of Cults

doi:10.1017/9781009280099.015

Chapter 14 - Legal Implications of Cults

from Section 3 - Treatment and Legal Repercussions

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 June 2025

Eric Y. Drogin and

Edited by

Paul Whitehead and

Tyler Durns: Affiliation:
University of Utah
Charles Scott: Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Paul Whitehead: Affiliation:
University of Utah
Barbara E. McDermott: Affiliation:
University of California, Davis

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Potential legal repercussions exist for cults and for the persons who lead, belong to, or otherwise interact with such organizations. Cults may be deemed criminal organizations, and may also incur civil liability when faulty attempts to maintain corporate status requirements are exposed. Despite this, attempts on the part of criminal prosecutors and civil plaintiffs’ attorneys to seek criminal penalties and civil damages have been met with mixed success. Cult members subjected to coercive control may attempt to assert defenses that involve duress and insanity, with uneven results. Of considerable concern for media representatives as well as cult members are defamation lawsuits that can lead to monetary damages and compelled public retractions. Lawyers whose efforts to provide zealous advocacy on behalf of cults are best advised to avoid overidentification with their clients. Treatment providers and forensic evaluators should weigh various risk factors carefully when engaging in service provision to cult members.

Keywords

aiding and abetting alienation of affection coercive control corporate liability cults defamation defensive practice duress malicious prosecution racketeering

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: A Clinical and Forensic Guide to Cults and Persuasive Leadership , pp. 273 - 282

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009280099.015 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–68 (1970).Google Scholar

Sood, AM. Reaching a verdict: empirical evidence of the crumbling conventional wisdom on criminal verdict format. NYU Law Review. 2023;98:1265–1357.Google Scholar

Keenan, D. The game of RICO: a powerful prosecutorial tool versus strict legislative limitations. DePaul Law Review. 2020;69:827–50.Google Scholar

Prather, LL. SLAPP suits: an encroachment on human rights of a global proportion and what can be done about it. Northwestern Journal of Human Rights. 2023;22:49–100.Google Scholar

Gilchrist, GM. The expressive cost of corporate immunity. Hastings Law Journal. 2012;64:1–57.Google Scholar

Burley v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014).Google Scholar

Chen, DL. Judicial compliance in district courts. International Review of Law & Economics. 2022;74:1–16.Google Scholar

Tsang, KF, Fan, K. The proper role of agency in corporate group. The International Lawyer. 2023;56:333–76.Google Scholar

Haward, S. Procedure at the intersection of law and equity: veil piercing and the seventh amendment. Notre Dame Law Review. 2023;98:1799–821.Google Scholar

Chang-Han, T, Wang, J, Hoffman, C. Piercing the corporate veil: historical, theoretical and comparative perspectives. Berkeley Business Law Journal. 2019;16:140–204.Google Scholar

Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, 22 U.S.C. §§ 7101–14 (2018).Google Scholar

Headley v. Church of Scientology Int’l, 687 F.3d 1173 (9th Circ. 2012).Google Scholar

Weigel, CM. Trafficking cults: why courts should adopt a broad reading of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to ensure protection of cult victims. George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal. 2020;30:269–305.Google Scholar

Liu, H. The behavioral economics of multilevel marketing. Hastings Business Law Journal. 2018;14:109–38.Google Scholar

Stein, A. Terror, love and brainwashing: attachment in cults and totalitarian systems. 2nd ed. Taylor & Francis; 2021.CrossRef Google Scholar

Richardson, JT. “Brainwashing” as forensic evidence. In: Morewitz, SJ, Goldstein, ML, editors. Handbook of forensic sociology and psychology. Springer; 2014. p. 77–85.CrossRef Google Scholar

Reichert, J, Richardson, JT, Thomas, R. “Brainwashing”: diffusion of a questionable concept in legal systems. International Journal for the Study of New Religions. 2015;6(1):3–26.CrossRef Google Scholar

Tiffany, E. Inclusive blameworthiness and the wrongfulness of causing harm. Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy. 2023;25:516–44.CrossRef Google Scholar

Holoyda, B, Newman, W. Between belief and delusion: cult members and the insanity plea. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 2016;44:53–62.Google Scholar PubMed

Arbel, YA, Mungan, M. The case against expanding defamation law. Alabama Law Review. 2019;71:454–97.Google Scholar

Koffler, JM. The pre-Sullivan common law web of protection against political defamation suits. Hofstra Law Review. 2018;47:153–229.Google Scholar

Garfield, LY. The death of slander. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts. 2011;35:17–53.Google Scholar

Tenzer, LYG. Destroying defamation. Harvard Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law. 2023;14:329–63.Google Scholar

Nielsen, AL, Walker, CJ. Qualified immunity’s 51 imperfect solutions. Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy. 2022;17:321–46.Google Scholar

Skorup, B, Huddleston, J. The erosion of publisher liability in American Law, Section 230, and the future of online curation. Oklahoma Law Review. 2020;72:635–73.Google Scholar

Kraus, AJ. Speak nice or else: the evolving law of non-disparagement provisions in the workplace. Labor Law Journal. 2019;70(2):97–102.Google Scholar

Steinberg, J. Arbitrating with the Mafia: why civil RICO statutes are improperly used and how class action arbitration may provide just compensation for forgotten victims. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution. 2020;22:97–125.Google Scholar

Dawson, G, Boynton, R. Reconciling complicity in genocide and aiding and abetting genocide in the jurisprudence of the United Nations ad hoc tribunals. Harvard Human Rights Journal. 2008;21:241–79.Google Scholar

Tymkovich, T, Stillwell, H. Malicious prosecution as undue process: a Fourteenth Amendment theory of malicious prosecution. The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy. 2022;20:255–81.Google Scholar

Burdette, ASD, Carruthers, J. Judicial review of prosecutorial blanket declination policies. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law. 2023;20:179–207.Google Scholar

Whittaker, A, Havard, T. Defensive practice as “fear-based” practice: social work’s open secret? British Journal of Social Work. 2016;46(5):1158–74.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ortashi, O, Virdee, J, Hassan, R, Mutrynowski, T, Abu-Zidan, F. The practice of defensive medicine among hospital doctors in the United Kingdom. BMC Medical Ethics. 2013;14:Article 42.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Gutheil, TG, Drogin, EY. The mental health professional in court: a survival guide. American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.Google Scholar

Schaus, S. Wrongs to us. Michigan Law Review. 2023;121:1185–1233.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ruutiainen, T, Northrop, J. Defining the scope of duty to warn readily identifiable individuals. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 2021;49:265–67.Google Scholar

Lipari v. Sears, 497 F. Supp. 185 (1980).Google Scholar

Naidu v. Laird, 539 A.2d 1064 (1988).Google Scholar

Pettis, R, Gutheil, TG. Misapplication of the Tarasoff duty to driving cases: a call for the reframing of theory. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 1993;21:263–75.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.