Programs are regularly open for 30 years, abducting, torturing (killing, regularly enough) youth.
Some, like CEDU, don't remain open soley because of corruption.
CA. was willing to go forward with prosecution against CEDU officials. But CEDU victims wouldn't come froward in great enough #s to make the case winnable, so charges were dropped.
Why did this happen? Why are victims so traumatized they won't self-advocate? Is this an issue epidemic enough that it's largely responsible for programs owners inevitably getting away with their crimes?
Discuss!
(some of) My theories and opinions:
1. In program we were trained not to look out for others, but to report on them and more or less turned into animals. That sticks for a while, few resist, and those who do are so broken by the end they don't bother fighting anymore. Nobody survives untouched.
2. Nobody wants to have such a stigma attached to their name as not only attending such a school, but also having to testify to such things in court, and giving staff the opportunity to bring forth "confessions" such as dirt lists and propheet disclosures.
3. Financial resources: what survivors who just get out of a program have enough money, or are able to convince a lawyer to take the case pro-bono, or are otherwise going to be bothering doing research when they are probably much more worried about day to day survival.
4. Many are brainwashed: Read some Margaret Singer / Robert Lifton / Richard Ofshe / Janja Lalich about this. By the time it wears off, the statute of limitations has long since expired.
5. (lack of) parental support: The entire program the parents have been told that thier kid is a manipulative fuckup etc etc... Now try convincing that parent to bankroll or otherwise support a lawsuit. On the contrary, i'm sure many parents would outright testify
against their own kids. Kids may not know much about the law, but those who do, or can imagine such a case, know this to be true.
6. Lack of trust to actually tell the parents about stuff: Kids learn in programs that if they tell their parents about event X abuse Y or instance of fraud / misrepresentation Z, the parents are always going to believe the program, especially since the allegations are usually so, on their faces, outright absurd (until you think about it and realize that the program directors know this and thus can get away with a
big lie more than a little one).
7. Home contracts: Many kids who do return to their parents homes and for some fluke / lack of financial resources do not wind up in another program / "transitional program" are held to "home contracts" (called different things by different programs) in which they are often forbidden to speak about the program. The contracts stipulate grave consequences if violated and often the youth is terrified into compliance (or takes a leap of faith, gets disbelieved, and "consequenced").
8. Lack of networking: Ever tried searching facebook, myspace, or other resources for contact information of kids who were in program with you. Then out of those few who you do find, see how many would be willing to testify. My guess is that star corroborating witness you're looking for is going to require a subpoena and would end up being either quite hostile or quite forgetful on the stand.
9. Lack of education about "therapy": Well, think about it. When you were in program, you were told X was "therapy" (or in the case of programs now,"emotional growth"). You had no other concept of the word and thus considered X to be "therapy". It's only later, when you research "therapy" or (shock, horror) end up on fornits.com or accidentally read some material on cults and/or brainwashing, you find out that what went on was not, actually, therapy... it was outright unprofessional if not in many cases abusive... moreover the program was designed to manipulate you, and although you might have figured out the program was bullshit before, you couldn't quite put your fingers on exactly how the stings of the students, parents and staff were pulled. It all falls into place, but usually far, far too late to make a court case out of depending on the statute of limitations in the state. This is why I advocate educating kids as soon as they get out of programs and this strategy seems to be supported by some of Margaret Singer's suggestions on cult exit counseling.
Anyway. I could go on but I think you see the point I'm trying to make. It's not like there is just one "line of defense" preventing masses of kids from suing programs... it's a whole host of them set up very strategically to make sure the programs continue to operate in the same fashion unabated. If each "line of defense" cuts the probability of a suit by even 50%, the cumulative effect is: your odds are not good.
