Intangible Captivity: The Potential for a New Canadian Criminal Defence of Brainwashing and its Implications for the Battered Woman - PhD Dissertation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation explores the issue of the potential for a Canadian defence of brainwashing in the context of battered spouses who commit crimes against third parties. Part I develops a working definition of the term 'brainwashing' and describes the legal history of this concept, including the perspectives of experts in physiology, psychology, and social science, and the development of related scientific models. Part II examines important related issues such as hypnosis, the Stockholm Syndrome, pertinent prisoner of war cases, Patty Hearst, and cult cases. In Part III, theoretical models stemming from these concepts are explored, particularly that of George Fletcher. This leads to an examination of the established defences of necessity, duress, automatism, and diminished capacity, which in turn moves the discussion toward the feasibility of an affirmative defence of brainwashing through the concepts of superimposed intent, entrapment, and false confessions. Part IV introduces the evolution of Battered Woman Syndrome as a model for this new defence, and in Part V the links between brainwashing and BWS are developed. Part VI expands on this theme with a look at brainwashing in the context of interpersonal relationships, which is expanded upon further in Part VII through the examination of the cases of Janice Hooker, Karla Homolka, Aldo Braibanti, the Manson 'Family,' and , finally, Lee Boyd Malvo. Part VIII then looks at mitigation in sentencing as well as future directions for this defence, and suggests the content of potential legislation. The thesis concludes that brainwashing should be an affirmative defence as well as an element in mitigation and provides sample legislation which could be adopted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".