Jerry Sandusky asks Pennsylvania high court to take case, Blind to betrayal: Why we fool ourselves we aren’t being fooled – Book Review

November 2, 2013 Comments Off on Jerry Sandusky asks Pennsylvania high court to take case, Blind to betrayal: Why we fool ourselves we aren’t being fooled – Book Review

Jerry Sandusky asks Pennsylvania high court to take case
AP November 1, 2013
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Jerry Sandusky wants Pennsylvania’s highest court to take up his appeal of a 45-count child sex abuse conviction, saying in a petition released Friday that the trial judge should have instructed jurors regarding the length of time it took his victims to come forward.

The new filing also repeated other arguments that were recently rejected by the mid-level Superior Court, including a claim that Sandusky’s lawyers lacked sufficient time to prepare and that a prosecutor improperly referred to Sandusky’s decision not to testify….

The petition argues that Judge John Cleland’s decision not to issue the “failure to make a prompt report” jury instruction was catastrophic to the defense strategy….

The defense lawyers said most of the eight young men who testified against Sandusky waited years to disclose the abuse, although one told his mother about showering with Sandusky the same day. The others ranged from two to 16 years, they wrote.

Cleland said he would not issue the jury instruction because he believed research indicates delayed reporting is not unusual in child sexual abuse cases, so a delay would not necessarily indicate dishonesty….
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/01/sandusky-court/3348953/

BLIND TO BETRAYAL: WHY WE FOOL OURSELVES WE AREN’T BEING FOOLED by Jennifer J. Freyd and Pamela J. Birrell
(Wiley, 2013). Molly Dragiewicz, Queensland Institute of Technology   The Criminologist The Official Newsletter of the American Society of Criminology Vol. 38, No. 5, September/October 2013 p. 60-61

Jennifer Freyd and Pamela Birrell’s “Blind to betrayal: Why we fool ourselves we aren’t being fooled”….expands upon Freyd’s earlier work on betrayal trauma theory (Freyd, 1996; Smith & Freyd, 2013)….However, the most interesting contribution of the book for criminologists may well be the authors’ attention to the relationship of power to the social construction of reality. The authors argue that vulnerability to or dependency on the perpetrator contributes to failures of recognition of abuse. In other words, targets of abuse may be “blind” to the harm being done to them while it is unsafe to recognize it. As a result, some memories of abuse are visible only later, when they attain the resources to survive the trauma.

Recent scholarship has highlighted the connections between psychological phenomena like individual perceptions of reality and the collective power relations that shape them (Salter, 2012; Zurbriggen, 2009). As critical scholars argue, pervasive forms of violence and abuse serve to reproduce social hierarchies, reinforcing some hegemonic community values even as they transgressother social norms. Like Stanley Cohen’s earlier book, States of Denial (2001), Blind to Betrayal examines victim, perpetrator, and bystander denial of horrific events and traces connections between psychology, culture, and politics. Freyd and Birrell argue that “betrayal blindness means not seeing what is there to be seen” (p. 1) and emphasize the way that betrayal and vulnerability shape the experience of trauma.

Using examples from popular culture and research, the authors illustrate the dynamics of interpersonal and institutional betrayal in a range of contexts. The book describes Freyd’s two-dimensional model for traumatic events, which incorporates the extentto which events are terror or fear inducing and the level of social betrayal involved. The authors argue that events that are both terror or fear inducing and high in social betrayal are the most traumatic (p. 57). Thus, Freyd and Birrell stress the multiplication of trauma by social betrayal. They also note the gendered nature of the phenomenon, wherein “betrayal traumas are frequent, particularly for girls and women” (p. 58). This observation agrees with other scholarship on the routine negation of girls’ and women’s accounts of abuse (Richie, 2012; Salter, 2012).

….Page 61

One of the most important parts of the book is found in Chapters 10 and 13 where Freyd and Birrell discuss the phenomenon of scholars’ participation in organized resistance to the disclosure of violence and abuse. Freyd uses the example of her ownexperience, in which her mother created a non-profit organization called The False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) in response to learning that Jennifer Freyd had disclosed her experience of childhood abuse to her partner. The FMSF website says, The False Memory Syndrome Foundation was formed by a group of accused families and several professionals at the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and Johns Hopkins Medical Institution in Baltimore. This nuclear group had come together with other families to try to figure out what had happened to cause the dramatic change of behavior in their now-adult children, to try to cope with the pain from the loss of their children and to address the legal nightmare of being accused of abuse. (The False Memory Syndrome Foundation, n.d.)

The organization has an advisory board made of up PhDs who share a belief in “implanted” and “false memories.” They advocate for those who claim they have been falsely accused, and promote research that allegedly shows disclosures of abuse are not credible, especially when delayed. This example of scholars mobilizing to discredit survivors of abuse is not unique. Criminologists rarely discuss the role of self-interest among scholars who may be perpetrators as well as survivors of violence and abuse. However, it is a mathematical certainty that some scholars are indeed perpetrators of violence and abuse. Freyd’s discussion of the harassment and discrediting tactics of the FMSF, including recruiting her own colleagues in the campaign to discredit her, will probably be familiar to some ASC members. Freyd and Birrell’s discussion of these dynamics took courage, since scholars who talk about campaigns against them are sometimes silenced when attempts to defend themselves result in claims of ad hominem attacks….
http://www.academia.edu/4562139/Book_review_Blind_to_Betrayal_by_Freyd_and_Birrell

 

Blind to Betrayal The Book, How often do Child Molesters go on to Reoffend?

April 13, 2013 Comments Off on Blind to Betrayal The Book, How often do Child Molesters go on to Reoffend?

– Blind to Betrayal Preface
– Blind to Betrayal – Chapter 1
– Speaking Our Truth Chapter Discusses Jennifer Freyd’s presentation at a professional conference “Personal and Theoretical Perspectives on the Delayed Memory Debate.”
– Recidivism: How often do Child Molesters go on to Reoffend?

Blind to Betrayal The Book  

Betrayal is fundamental to the human condition.  Betrayal is everywhere and yet because of betrayal blindness often not seen. Drawing on empirical research, clinical thought, and real stories, we will explore with the reader central questions about betrayal and betrayal blindness: What is betrayal? What is its scope? Why are we often blind to it? What are the mental mechanisms that underlie betrayal blindness? What are the effects of betrayal blindness? How should we overcome the effects of betrayal and our blindness to it? How do we become aware of it and heal from its effects? We can create a better world together by facing betrayal and learning to trust ourselves and each other.   https://sites.google.com/site/betrayalbook/the-book


Blind to Betrayal Preface

“Betrayal violates us. It can destroy relationships and the very trust we need to be intimate in our relationships. It can and does damage the social fabric that creates the bonds for a healthy society.

In the case of children, the effects can last a lifetime. Betrayed children may grow into adults who fail to trust the trustworthy or who too readily trust people who further betray them. Whether being too willing or too unwilling to trust, difficulty with trust not only interferes with relationships, but also eats away at a strong sense of self. Those who were betrayed as children often suffer severe self esteem problems, as well as depression, anxiety, and even psychosis.”
http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/~jjf/blindtobetrayalpreface.pdf

Blind to Betrayal – Chapter 1
“betrayal occurs in many domains besides infidelity. People can be betrayed at work, in the family, and in society. Betrayal can occur at the individual and at the societal level. Betrayal can be the act of a terrorist or the act of a friend. Parents can betray by abandoning or abusing their children. Treason is betrayal. Social injustice and oppression often entail betrayal and betrayal blindness, as will be illustrated in the next chapter by the case of Kevin, who remained blind to being a victim of racial discrimination for so many years. Although not all betrayal involves blindness, ongoing or repeated betrayal is intrinsically linked with unawareness.
Ongoing betrayal can occur only when there is some deception that is not fully detected.”
http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/09/04706044/0470604409-124.pdf

Speaking Our Truth – Chapter 13 Discusses Jennifer Freyd’s presentation at a professional conference “Personal and Theoretical Perspectives on the Delayed Memory Debate.”  She discusses her personal relationship with her parents, their false memory organization and her accounts of privacy violations and inappropriate relationships.

Blind to Betrayal  March 11th, 2013
Professor Jennifer Freyd has a new book with Pamela Birrell called Blind to Betrayal. The book, officially published today, explores various case studies involving betrayal, its effects and how victims come to grips with it.  Most relevant to the Recovered Memory Project is the chapter about the False Memory Syndrome….
http://blogs.brown.edu/recoveredmemory/2013/03/11/blind-to-betrayal/

Recidivism: How often do Child Molesters go on to Reoffend?

Some people claim that child abusers can’t be cured and invariably reoffend. Others suggest that recidivism rates are low and that sex offenders are less likely to reoffend than those who commit other types of crimes. What is the truth?

Overall, follow-up studies typically find sexual recidivism rates of 10%-15% after five years, 20% after 10 years, and 30%-40% after 20 years (see, Hanson, Morton, & Harris, 2003).

However, these numbers are conservative because not all offences are detected….

The vast majority of sex offenses are never reported. For instance, the National Women’s Study surveyed a representative sample of over 4,000 adult women in the United States . Three hundred forty-one (8.5%) of these women were victims of at least one rape prior to the age of 18; however, only 11.9% of these women reported the rape to authorities (Hanson et al., 1990). And it must be remembered, of the few offenses reported, an even smaller number result in convictions.
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/rcd.html

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing the betrayal blindness category at Eassurvey's Weblog.