Patty Hearst Brainwashed? Ha!

Clinton, before moving into his $700,000 a year office (at taxpayer’s expense)made several irresponsible pardons. One was for Patty (or Patricia) Hearst. She was on Larry King’s show tonight. She continued to maintain that she was brainwashed and said that altho prison is no picnic, compared to her kidnapping it was. She ranted about how horribly she was treated after being kidnapped.

I submit to you that she is full of bs. Please note that she married one of those terrorists who treated her so horribly and has remained married to him for 21 years. So, those of you who believe her, please explain that to me.

Actually, IIRC, her husband was a private security officer employed by the Hearst family.

Yes, what I’ve just read on the web only indicates that Bernard Shaw was her bodyguard, nothing to do with the SLA. So, given that you appear to be mistaken on that facet of your post, I will look forward to more evidence to support your claim.

Thank you.

So, what is it that you want to debate? Pick one.

  1. Clinton should/should not have pardoned Patty Hearst.

  2. Patty Hearst was/was not brainwashed during her kidnapping.

  3. Patty Hearst was/was not treated horribly during her kidnapping.

  4. Patty Hearst’s husband was/was not one of the terrorists.

  5. Clinton’s new office is/is not too expensive.

  6. Clinton’s new office should/should not have been paid for by the taxpayers.

  7. (other).

Well, I’m glad Patty Hearst was finally pardoned. Jimmy Carter and myself have never waivered in the belief that she was not responsible for her actions. I can’t believe that a young married women, raised in privelege with every reason to maintain the social position that she possessed and enjoyed, would throw it away on her own free will for a dubious unsupported cause requiring the violence that she so clearly never possessed before nor after her captivity of the soul. The kidnapping which preceded this whole nightmare was against her will, and the results should not be charged against her.

Patty, although intelligent, does not appear to me to possess “mental strength”. I think most of us would not have been so easily been brainwashed, but each of us has their threshhold. She could babysit my kids anytime.

I don’t think there is any debate over whether Clinton’s new office is too expensive. That’s undeniable. Since it has been the practice for us to pay for ex-presidential offices, there’s no debate there either. Unless you think that practice should be discontinued.

If Ms. Hearst’s husband was not one of the terrorists, then I’m wrong, and there’s no debate about that either. If some one can back that up with a link, that would satisfy me. If that be the case, the matter is settled and this thread can be kidnapped as well.

Oo-K, then, let’s take it away! Hijack it, Kidnap it, Throw it to the wolves!

Should people like Patty Hearst get to trade on their “celebrity” after committing these crimes? This applies to G. Gordon Liddy & Ollie North too!

Anyone? Anyone?

I don’t think Patty Hearst had to trade in on her notoriety. She was already rich and famous. The other two were famous, but not rich.

To retrograde, if Patty Hearst was brainwashed as posters here say, why was she found guilty? One has to be of sound mind and have intent to commit a crime together with the realization that she is committing a crime. If she was brainwashed and not knowing what she was doing, she could not be guilty.

To get back to Clinton. He certainly has abused his privileges, renting out an entire floor of a skyscraper in NYC and pardoning criminals w/o asking Justice. But because he has abused his privileges, I don’t think that those privileges should be scrapped. I guess that’s a matter for a new thread, but we can stick it in here since it was brought up, if anyone wants to comment.

I’m not sure I see the connection between being “brainwashed” and “not knowing what one is doing.” If she was re-educated, so to speak, to believe the cause of the SLA was a just cause, that doesn’t mean she wasn’t aware it was wrong according to society. She began to identify with her captors, not become mentally handicapped.

Yes, I’ve found all of this a bit interesting myself - especially the pardon of Mr. Rich, for which I’ve not heard a good justification (although I am willing to listen if someone has one).

If she were brainwashed, she would not be in her right mind. She might have known what she was doing and knew it was wrong, but it would be similar to a multiple personality: a mental disorder.

And under the law of most states, if you know the difference between right and wrong, your insanity plea fails. At that point, whether or not she had a mental disorder no longer matters to the legal system, meaning that her only possibility of exoneration for a crime committed while (arguably) brainwashed is executive clemency.

And under the law of most states, if you know the difference between right and wrong, your insanity plea fails. At that point, whether or not she had a mental disorder no longer matters to the legal system, meaning that her only possibility of exoneration for a crime committed while (arguably) brainwashed is executive clemency.

Umm… haven’t you just described every “radical chic” and cultist movement from the entire Counterculture era?

"SECTION 17-24-10. Affirmative defense.

"(A) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for a crime that, at the time of the commission of the act constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of mental disease or defect, lacked the capacity to distinguish moral or legal right from moral or legal wrong or to recognize the particular act charged as morally or legally wrong.

"(B) The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence.

"© Evidence of a mental disease or defect that is manifested only by repeated criminal or other antisocial conduct is not sufficient to establish the defense of insanity.

"SECTION 17-24-20. Guilty but mentally ill; general requirements for verdict

"(A) A defendant is guilty but mentally ill if, at the time of the commission of the act constituting the offense, he had the capacity to distinguish right from wrong or to recognize his act as being wrong as defined in Section 17-24-10(A), but because of mental disease or defect he lacked sufficient capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.

"SECTION 17-24-40. Commitment of defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity.

“(A) In the event a verdict of “not guilty by reason of insanity” is returned, the trial judge shall order the defendant committed to the South Carolina State Hospital for a period not to exceed one hundred twenty days. During that time an examination shall be made of the defendant to determine the need for hospitalization of the defendant pursuant to the standards set forth in Section 44-17-580 of the 1976 Code.”

So there is a distinction. If one cannot distinguish right from wrong, he or she is not guilty. If he or she can, but is mentally ill, she is “guilty but mentally ill” and not incarcerated in a prison, but is hospitalized.

More importantly, my point is that the Patty Hearst that wsa tried, if she was in fact brainwashed, was not the Patty Hearst that robbed the bank. That was a different person (assuming for the sake of argument that she was brainwashed).

There is no such thing as “brainwashing”. Now, it is true that humans are social animals, and that they will often do suprisingly silly things to fit into a social group. But that doesn’t make them brainwashed. If it did, every drive-by-shooter could claim they were brainwashed by their gang.

Lemur866, please watch the movie “The Manchurian Candidate”, and tell me that Laurence Harvey wasn’t brainwashed. :stuck_out_tongue:

barbitu8 says <<If Ms. Hearst’s husband was not one of the terrorists, then I’m wrong, and there’s no debate about that either. If some one can back that up with a link, that would satisfy me.>>

How about Encyclopedia Britannica? <<Sentenced to seven years, she spent the next three years partly in prison, partly at liberty (during appeals), was released in February 1979, and, shortly after, married her former bodyguard Bernard Shaw.>>

Whence are you getting your bogus information?

Hmph! Arnold, just wait until I find my all Queen of Diamonds deck. Then I’ll prove to you that there’s no such thing as brainwashing…no such thing as brainwashing…no such thing as brainwashing…

I don’t know what actually happened to Patty Hearst. I know that I would not want to have gone through what she did. I looked up a link related to cults, and there is skepticism by the author about brainwashing. But there is other information about how people are changed by charismatic leaders. And you also need to remember that Patty Hearst was tortured and probably thought she was going to be murdered. She must have been terrified. I won’t judge her because I did not experience what she did.

I am hazy on some of the details. But I distinctly remember that after she was kidnapped–dragged out of her fiance’s apartment in the middle of the ngiht–Patty Hearst was blindfolded, gagged, with her wrists and ankles bound, and locked in a closet for several weeks. She was taken out long enough to be allowed to use the toilet, but not always in time. The circumstances under which she was kidnapped were sufficiently confusing that she believed her fiance had been killed during the raid. She was raped. She was “interrogated,” and threatened with death and told constantly that she was a worthless piece of rich-girl s**t. She was pressured daily to record messages to the public and her family supporting the cock-eyed revolutionary message of the Symbionese Libertaion Army.

Ms. Hearst was not, at the time she was kidnapped, a member of a military group with a tradition of resisting captivity and esprit de corps. She was not confined with other prisoners who could have helped her keep up her spirits and her will to resist. She had no preparation, formal or informal, that would have helped her understand and cope with what was happening. As a strategy to survive under the intolerable conditions in which she found herself, she began to pretend that she agreed with her captors and attempted to placate them so they would let her stay outside the closet. Eventually she got good enough at this act to be allowed minor liberties. The more she cooperated, the less she was brutalized, demeaned, and threatened.

She testified at her trial that although she did “participate” in the bank robberies where she was shown on bank cameras, she was never allowed to handle a loaded weapon, and would have been shot by the REAL members of the SLA if she had tried to escape.

There is an excellent book called Trauma and Recovery by Judith Herman Lewis that discusses the problems faced by these victims when they attempt to tell their stories afterward. You could also read Unspaakable Truths and Happy Endings by Rebecca Coffey. Both of these books make the point that the stories of survivors of torture are so horrible, so frightening, so disgusting, that many listeners prefer to say “They’re making it up.” Because otherwise it might be TRUE that human beings can be degraded and abused by other human beings until they become compliant with evil. Maybe even you. It could happen to you.

Speaking on a personal basis, the first time I had to take detailed testimony from a survivor of torture (in a North African prison), I went into a clinical depression that lasted for two months. Took drugs and psychotherapy to work through it. Hardest thing I’ve ever had to do, worse than sitting with a friend dying of cancer, worse than burying someone you love.

So Barbitu8, forgive me for saying this, but maybe you should look into your own heart, and find out what YOU’RE afraid of. It’s incredibly easy to say “I would never…” But when they’re applying a fully heated steam iron to your calf, it’s not quite so academic.

So where did I say “I would never…”? I would never say that.