Blind to Betrayal: Why We Fool Ourselves We Aren't Being Fooled (5 page)

Consent in sexual assault cases remains a vexed issue in American courts. In the excellent book
Unwanted Sex: The Culture of Intimidation and the Failure of Law
, Stephen Schulhofer, traces the history of consent laws.
^6.
He notes that in the sixteenth century, “the common law of theft protected an owner's property only when a wrongdoer physically removed it from the owner's possession, against the will and by force” (p. 3). However, “the law evolved, slowly at first, to fill the intolerable gaps” (p. 3). Today the law “punishes virtually all interference with property rights without the owner's genuine consent. Yet there has been no comparable evolution and modernization of the law of sexual assault” (p. 4). In other words, if your front door is unlocked and someone you know walks into your house and takes your laptop computer while you cower in the corner, this is a crime unless you have explicitly given affirmative permission. There is no argument to be made that you have implicitly consented to engage in giving away your possessions by your open door, by the prior display of your product, or by your silence during the theft. Compare this state of affairs to current beliefs about sexual assault, where victims can be blamed for their clothing and are often held responsible for not actively resisting. Furthermore, sexual assault law currently draws inconsistent lines regarding the age of consent and is largely insensitive to other aspects of the power differential (such as formal roles of authority and power) that can vastly reduce a person's ability to freely consent.

In Freyd's testimony, she drew on research about victims to educate the jury that a passive response to sexual assault is not uncommon, and she discussed some of the research regarding factors that are associated with such a response, such as fear and perceived powerlessness. Most important was the concept of betrayal. The girl on the plane was dependent on her coach for her position on her team, and she trusted him. He was twice her age, and she was under his care. Her passivity was entirely consistent with betrayal blindness. During closing arguments, the prosecutor was able to remind the jury that crime victims often do respond passively, and she brought up all of the substantial evidence contrary to the defense's argument of consent. The jury found the defendant guilty.

Mark Walker: Another Case of Betrayal

In April 2011, a federal parole officer named Mark Walker pleaded guilty for engaging in sexual contact and sexual abuse with female parolees who were directly under his supervision between 2006 and 2009.
^7.
Walker had used his enormous power to manipulate and coerce the women into performing sexual acts they did not want to engage in. Walker was a bold and masterful perpetrator, able to use his substantial institutional power for his own gratification. At least fifteen of the women Walker had supervised accused him of inappropriate contact, although not all of these instances were included in the criminal case, due to matters such as the statute of limitations. This sort of abuse involves a great deal of betrayal, and much of that betrayal is due to the social and institutional context in which the abuse occurs.

The women Walker targeted were vulnerable to him for a number of reasons. First, many of them had already been abused by others close to them, and as we see in chapter 9, one way betrayal is so toxic is the way it sets up victims to be revictimized. Second, their fates were all under Walker's control. He could grant them favors (such as not requiring drug testing), or he could punish them (such as reporting them as violating parole) to the point of sending them back to prison.

Jennifer Freyd was again a consultant for the federal prosecution on this case. One of the issues the prosecution faced, prior to the guilty plea, was that the victims initially did not report the abuse. It took quite some time and probing on the part of the FBI to uncover the extent of Walker's abuse. Furthermore, in some ways it might seem as if the women consented to the sexual acts because they did not initially file reports to complain. This silence could potentially be confusing to a jury, just as in the case of the girl on the plane who was passive during her assault. However, we can understand this response in terms of betrayal blindness. These women were entirely under the control of Walker. Many of them initially trusted him and wanted him to like them. In some cases, the women did not at first realize the extent to which they were being mistreated. Furthermore, when they did realize, they had reason to fear they would not be believed if they spoke out. The women's initial silence makes very good sense for their own survival.

Fortunately, Walker was ultimately held accountable for his crimes, and the federal government acknowledged the terrible betrayal. A federal judge, Chief Judge Beistline, apologized to the victims on behalf of the U.S. government.
^8.
He commended them for their courage and integrity in coming forward.

In July 2011, Walker was sentenced to ten years in prison. After the sentence hearing, U.S. Attorney Dwight C. Holton said this:

Walker's betrayal of trust is staggering. He victimized people he was entrusted to supervise, and on top of that, he undermined the credibility of people in law enforcement and the courthouse community. I hope his lengthy prison sentence makes clear that we will hold accountable those who breach the public trust.

A Special Case of Betrayal Blindness: Stockholm Syndrome

For six days in August 1973, a group of bank employees were held hostage in Stockholm, Sweden. To the surprise of the world, many of these hostages became attached to the terrorists who were their captors. Some of the hostages even defended their captors after they were released. You might wonder how and why this happened. The term
Stockholm syndrome
was created to name what at first seems a paradoxical reaction to being held hostage. This reaction is characterized by a victim having positive feelings toward the captors. Stockholm syndrome applies to the special case of those feelings developing after a hostage takeover, as when an individual or a group is kidnapped and held for a ransom. From a theoretical perspective, the Stockholm syndrome reaction may be understood as a special kind of betrayal blindness.

The unusual aspect of Stockholm syndrome, compared with most betrayal blindness situations, is that the strong emotional attachment occurs
after
the abduction and without the preexisting context of an enduring caretaker or trusting relationship. Law enforcement officials believe that for Stockholm syndrome to occur, the captors must show a certain amount of kindness (or, at least, lack of cruelty) toward the hostages. From the perspective of betrayal blindness, the most important elements that predict Stockholm syndrome would not be kindness, per se, but rather caretaking behavior on the part of the captors and an implicit or explicit belief on the part of the victims that survival depends on the captors. Thus, we believe the victims would have to experience the captors as a source of caretaking and as necessary for survival in order to develop the emotional attachment necessary to create a betrayal trauma. Once the captors are experienced as necessary caretakers, a process much like that in childhood could occur, such that the victims have a good reason for attaching to the captors and thus eliciting caretaking behaviors. So, just as children do, the victims would need to become blind to the betrayal by the captors. To see the captors in a positive light, victims might distort reality in order to survive their predicament.

Anecdotal support for the premise that the victims' dependence and survival are at the heart of the development of Stockholm syndrome can be found in an online FBI article about Stockholm syndrome.
^9.
A related article states:

In cases where Stockholm syndrome has occurred, the captive is in a situation where the captor has stripped nearly all forms of independence and gained control of the victim's life, as well as basic needs for survival. Some experts say that the hostage regresses to, perhaps, a state of infancy; the captive must cry for food, remain silent, and exist in an extreme state of dependence. In contrast, the perpetrator serves as a mother figure protecting her child from a threatening outside world, including law enforcement's deadly weapons. The victim then begins a struggle for survival, both relying on and identifying with the captor.
^10.

The Story of Jacques Sandulescu's Betrayal Blindness

A powerful experience of betrayal blindness in a captive situation occurred to the late Jacques Sandulescu, the author of the autobiography
Donbas: A True Story of an Escape across Russia
.
^11.
In 1945, Sandulescu, a Russian boy of sixteen, was captured by the Soviet Red Army. He was shipped in a cattle car to the coalfields of the Donets River Basin (from which comes the name “Donbas”). There Sandulescu became a slave laborer, mining coal. His life was tremendously harsh, and he almost died more than once. Ultimately, Sandulescu escaped the mines and made his way to the United States, a rare survivor of the slave labor camps.

Jennifer Freyd (JF) had the opportunity to interview Sandulescu (JS) while he was still alive. She asked him about his ability to survive the camps. He spoke about his success in befriending the Russian guards, who then ended up helping him survive. Sandulescu's wife, Annie Gottlieb (AG), was also part of the conversation.

JF: It seems to me, reading the book, that the guards are kinder to Jacques than to many other prisoners, like giving him extra things. Is that true?

JS: They were kinder because in a way I had reached out to them, too. I talked with them, and the other prisoners were very sullen. . . . They hated them. It's like . . . this guy's got a job. The government tells them . . . Why should you hate him? I did not view the guards with hatred.

AG: So you reached out to them, then, in a way that other prisoners didn't.

Jacques explained that during the day he would talk to the guards, even laugh with them.

AG: Other prisoners did not do that much? Most of them?

JS: No, no, no, no. Not at all. I think that was one of the keys. That's why the guards liked me.

AG: Yeah, because it wasn't just that you were a strong worker, because Omar was also a very strong worker, but he wouldn't talk to them.

JF: So, I think I understand your point that the guards were doing a job they were told to do, and so there's no point to hate them for just doing their job. But at the same time, it sounds like sometimes the guards were cruel in a way they didn't really have to be.

JS: Sometimes they used to go out of their way to be cruel!

JF: And when you saw that, what did you do? Did you—

JS: What could I do? I couldn't do anything. I just thought this guy's a stupid asshole, you know.

JF: Right, well, you couldn't really do anything, but I mean what were you thinking? What were you feeling when you saw them being cruel, more than they needed to be for their job?

JS: I sometimes used to see them be cruel to girls—

AG: Cruel in what way?

JS: Well, you saw the other guys . . . hit that lady . . .

AG: With a stick?

JS: Yeah. That type of thing.

AG: Driving them to work harder?

JS: Yeah. I don't know, sometimes I used to get in the way. . . . Those were girls from families where there was no physical labor involved, like a daughter of a professor. What did they know about a shovel, grab a hard shovel and lift the shovel and empty a coal car? They didn't know, they had soft hands, they . . .

AG: You said sometimes you used to step in and do it for them, you said?

JS: Yeah, quick, the guards shouted, “Quick, quick.” They needed an empty car. I got it done.

AG: The guards didn't object to that?

JS: No.

Jacques went on to explain that not only did the guards let him help the girls, but they brought him treats.

JS: Some of them, they used to bring me roasted sunflower seeds. They gave me a couple of handfuls.