CHILDHOOD TRAUMA AS MITIGATION

Transcription

1 Introduction CHILDHOOD TRAUMA AS MITIGATION I ve been involved in approximately 95 capital murder cases in 11 states and in federal and military jurisdiction; testified as expert witness in 16 cases in 4 states and in U.S. military jurisdiction. In most cases, hired specifically because it was known or suspected that defendant was sexually abused in childhood; in some cases, sexual abuse not suspected, but evaluation sought related to childhood trauma more generally physical abuse, deprivation, neglect, poverty, domestic violence, violence in environment, etc. Role of Expert in Capital Cases with Sexually Abused Defendant I view my role in these cases as telling the story of the defendant with a focus on the childhood trauma including sexual abuse that he has experienced. I think of my report as a sort of minibiography of the defendant, allowing all those involved in the case, including the jury, to view the defendant as a human being, regardless of the heinousness of his crime(s). Will turn in a moment to those factors and focus on the various powerful ways in which Childhood Sexual Abuse (CSA) affects men and may play significant roles in crimes they later commit. Relevance of Childhood Sexual Abuse to Crime/ How is it Mitigating? I view my reports and testimony as having 2 functions: First is giving the defendant a human face, so others can view him as more than simply a murderer. But it is not enough simply to humanize the defendant. It must be shown how their childhood abuse experiences represent potentially mitigating factors the jury may use in deciding their fate. And, of course, in most cases, the connection is not direct. In situations where the connection is direct, the mitigation is obvious. The two categories that would fit this obvious scenario are: An individual killing his childhood perpetrator. Cases in which the murder stemmed from a sexual situation defendant found similar to childhood abuse experiences and, therefore, disproportionately threatening. But in most cases, to make the connections between childhood sexual abuse and later, adult behavior, it is necessary to explain the ways in which the CSA, and the other types of trauma which often go along with it, influenced the trajectory of the defendant s entire life. I do not believe that it is necessary and it usually not possible to demonstrate a direct nexus, to explain how the childhood sexual abuse or the various childhood traumas suffered by the defendant made him kill someone. Instead, I believe what is necessary to provide and demonstrate to the D.A. and/or to the jury is how the abuse and trauma contributed to the defendant becoming the adult he became. Page 1 of 5

2 For example, we know that rates of drug abuse and addiction are far higher among survivors of CSA than among the population more generally. Did the defendant s drug use and the lifestyle associated with it make him more likely to commit the crime in question? Has the defendant taken on a pattern of machismo or hypermasculinization, as many male survivors of CSA do, and did this pattern of increased aggression contribute to the crime? In either case, the CSA would potentially be considered mitigating. To demonstrate that childhood abuse is mitigating to convey to a jury that the experiences the defendant had during childhood are far beyond the normal traumas experienced by many or even most people, it is necessary to paint a clear picture of the severity, the duration, and the multitude of traumatic factors experienced by the defendant. Only by doing this will a jury be able to overcome their view of presentation of trauma as mitigation as use of the abuse excuse. That is why clear presentation of the life history of the defendant with the plethora of traumas, deprivations, violence, and abuse, to which most of them have, in my experience, been subjected, is necessary. These multiple sources of trauma, along with factors which make certain trauma experiences more pathogenic, will be discussed below. Those abused during childhood are more likely to be victimized again, often repeatedly, later in life. Exposure to trauma has a cumulative effect, so the more someone is victimized especially the more different traumatizing experiences an individual faces the more damaged his or her emotional and behavioral health tends to be. Someone sexually abused one time by one person may be able to view this event as an anomalous event; someone sexually abused multiple times by multiple perpetrators over a long period of time will tend to view the world as a profoundly dangerous place, to view other people as untrustworthy, and to develop compensatory survival strategies for coping with these experiences. For male victims of CSA, a hypermasculine, aggressive stance is a common reaction to these traumas. The focus on telling the story of the individual defendant is quite different from the role of mental health experts involved in other aspects of a capital defense, such as determining competency to stand trial or assessing insanity. These focus largely on diagnosis, whereas the life-story approach can certainly look at diagnoses, but this is not the primary point of emphasis. Instead, my evaluations, reports, and testimony attempt to arrive at a comprehensive understanding of the defendant, and thus to be able to explain the complete human being charged with the capital crime. COMMON CHARACTERISTICS AMONG CSA VICTIMS/SURVIVORS: Shame, Powerlessness, Betrayal, Doubts about Masculinity, and Traumatic Sexualization. Page 2 of 5

3 SECRECY/SHAME Being able to disclose and then to obtain protection, support, treatment, is central to being able to recover with relatively minimal long-term effects. Disclosure rate among males way lower than for females for several reasons Less recognition/awareness of sexual abuse of males Adults less likely to suspect sexual abuse of boys, who are more likely to be seen as just an angry kid, a behavior problem, etc. Boys who are sexually abused feel enormous dissonance and discomfort due to gap between abuse experience and sense of what it means to be a man FEELING WEAK/POWERLESS Abuse experience is one of helplessness and powerlessness. Males who are abused feel enormous dissonance between this and societal role expectations of being strong, tough, powerful, and able to protect and take care of oneself. DOUBTS ABOUT MASCULINITY Male victims tend to have great doubt about their masculinity, feeling that they are weak, effeminate, and worrying about their sexual orientation. BETRAYAL/ LACK OF TRUST Huge difficulty trusting, and often acting in untrustworthy ways. SELF-BLAME Male victims tend to blame self, feel that they should have been able to protect themselves, and that they are weak, effeminate etc. for allowing the abuse to occur. Though they were just kids when the abuse began, they tend to feel like it was their fault. SUBSTANCE ABUSE/ADDICTION Very high rate of substance abuse and addiction among male survivors. Treatment for drug addiction is probably the most common way that male survivors end up getting help for their childhood abuse. ANGER/ PATTERN OF HOLDING IT IN & THEN DISPROPORTIONATE RXN Victims of CSA often carry around enormous rage so that when they do react, it is far beyond and disproportionate to whatever the immediate trigger was. Because they are reacting not only to the immediate behavior but to the abuse, to not being protected, and so forth. ACTING IN A COMPENSATORY MANNER Many male survivors act in a compensatory, hypermasculine way. Tough aggressive stance, tendency to get into fights and to act in an intimidating or dominating manner, stem at least in part from need to demonstrate that he is tough, strong and powerful, a man s man, not one to be pushed around In short, that he is the opposite of the boy who was repeatedly taken advantage of and who was unable to protect himself from recurrent, ongoing sexual assaults. Page 3 of 5

4 This tendency toward aggressive behavior found among many male victims of childhood sexual abuse is a particularly challenging area in terms of appropriate diagnosis. It is easy to misdiagnose such an individual as having Antisocial Personality Disorder on the basis of multiple rule-breaking and aggressive behaviors. This, however, is a clear mis-use of the DSM diagnostic criteria which state that the context of these behaviors must be taken into account, and that when someone has been exposed to trauma particularly multiple and/or ongoing trauma the possibility of PTSD should be considered. ASSESSING OTHER RISK FACTORS VS PROTECTIVE FACTORS Obviously, most men sexually abused during childhood do not go on to a life of violence, much less to commit murder. Need to look also at additional risk factors vs protective factors. Not all abuse is created equally. Enormous variation across the experiences of victims/survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Can point to a worst-case scenario and, by contrast, to situations that are likely to make the presence of sexual abuse less damaging. WORST-CASE FACTORS WITHIN SEXUAL ABUSE Early age of onset Long duration High frequency High severity of sexual acts Physical force and violence in conjunction with sexual abuse Closeness in relationship between perpetrator and victim Several additional aspects of the life of the individual subjected to CSA also need to be explored. The presence of these factors tend to exacerbate the negative impact of CSA. RISK FACTORS Physical Abuse Emotional Abuse Poverty Substance Abuse/Addiction Domestic Violence Violence in neighborhood, surrounding environment Lack of positive, protective, benign adult figures: Similarly, various factors serve as counter-weights to the attributes described in the two sections above, providing a level of protection to the individual and thus decreasing the likely severity of the impact of the CSA. Page 4 of 5

5 Research literature clearly shows that social support and therapy can do an enormous amount to minimize the negative effects of childhood trauma. Unfortunately, male victims are far less likely to disclose about their abuse; adults in their lives are far less likely to suspect that they have been abused. Therefore, provision of social support networks and/or therapy occurs much less frequently for male victims than for female victims. When male victims do get therapy, it is typically much later in life (rather than close in time to the CSA), and often only secondary to provision of substance abuse treatment or intervention aimed at their aggressive or violent behavior. PROTECTIVE FACTORS/ RESILIENCE OF VICTIM Able to disclose about abuse Being believed and supported, further abuse prevented. Receiving treatment for the abuse Short duration and infrequent instances of abuse Abuse by someone distant from victim, rather than a family member or close figure in whom trust would normally be expected Generally positive family and environmental factors, other than the sexual abuse, i.e., lack of physical and emotional abuse, lack of violence in the family, lack of drug use; supportive, protective parental figures. Strong skills in some areas which can serve as an outlet and escape from the abuse (academic, athletic, artistic, etc.) Page 5 of 5