#legal scholarship | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

grits-galraisedinthesouth · 1 year ago

Text

Northwestern University (Chicago,IL) scholarships needy cheerleaders only to pimp them out as prostitutes to their big donors & VIPs

Northwestern's sex trafficking scheme is exposed and not 1 liberal journalist will cover it.

A former cheerleader for Northwestern University who says her coach intentionally put her in situations where she was sexually harassed and assaulted can proceed with her sex trafficking and forced labor claims against the school, the coach, and several school officials, a federal judge said.

#1 school for journalists, yet the liberal media has refused to cover it

Threatened & intimidated needy girls

Violated forced labour & human trafficking laws

Scholarshiped students to cheerlead

Sex trafficking & emotional distres

If the girls talked, they would owe the university multiple thousands of dollars

Pimped out to Donor Events & VIP Fan Events

Cheerleaders forced into events where they are harassed... interest in donations counts as commercial benefit.

Northwestern cheerleaders 'presented as sex objects' to entice fans, donors, lawsuit claims

Former Northwestern cheerleader's sex trafficking claims can proceed in court, judge rules

A former Northwestern University cheerleader claims she and her teammates were “presented as sex objects” at numerous events, including football tailgates at the Evanston school, and were forced to interact with drunk and belligerent fans for the university’s financial gain.

As a result, some were sexually harassed on numerous occasions while wearing their Northwestern uniforms, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court in Chicago.

The plaintiff, Hayden Richardson, described a “hostile environment” throughout her two seasons as a Wildcats cheerleader, which included repeated instances of sexual harassment, her suit lawsuit says.

Richardson alleges Northwestern “forced its cheerleaders to behave in a degrading and demeaning manner” to get wealthy fans and alumni to donate to the university and its athletic department.

Former Northwestern cheerleading coach Pamela Bonnevier required female squad members to “mingle” with intoxicated fans without security at several university-sanctioned events, according to the suit. That resulted in Richardson allegedly being groped, assaulted and subjected to “incessant sexual comments,” and in some instances, fans placing their hands on her buttocks and breasts while taking pictures, the suit says.

“It became clear to [Richardson] that the cheerleaders were being presented as sex objects to titillate the men that funded the majority of Northwestern’s athletics programs,” her suit says. “After all, the happier these men were, the more money the University would receive from them. The University’s actions made it clear that brains do not bring in large donations, sex does.”

In the suit, first reported by the Chicago Tribune, Richardson said she initially felt “trapped” in her situation on the cheer team because if she didn’t comply she would be booted from the team, lose her scholarship and be forced to repay the expenses incurred while she was on the team.

When she did come forward, Richardson alleges the athletic department mishandled her complaints. One athletic department official initially didn’t report her complain to the Title IX office, the lawsuit said, a violation of the university’s Title IX policy and federal Title IX guidance.

“It further became evident to [Richardson] that Northwestern’s commitment to supporting victims was a façade to conceal a much uglier reality — Northwestern was willing to silence, and sacrifice the well-being of, its female athletes in order to keep its donors happy,” the suit said.

In a statement, Northwestern said it reviewed the complaint and denies the university violated any law, including Title IX.

“We take all complaints seriously, and we appreciate the courage it takes for anyone in our community to come forward to report potential wrongdoing,” the statement said. “In this case, the University’s Office of Equity conducted a lengthy and thorough investigation, following University policies and procedures.”

Northwestern and Bonnevier are named as defendants in the lawsuit as well as the Deputy Title IX Coordinator and two members of the university’s athletic department, which funds the cheerleading program.

The suit said Bonnevier was fired in October, though it’s unclear if these allegations played apart in her departure. Northwestern confirmed she’s no longer employed.

Richardson seeks an unspecified amount in damages for emotional and psychological distress as well as loss of educational and career opportunities.

Richardson’s suit follows similar ones filed by professional cheerleaders. In 2018, seven former cheerleaders sued the Houston Texans, alleging they were subjected to assault, harassment and unpaid wages.

In a 2018 New York Times report, dozens of NFL, NBA and NHL cheerleaders opened up about their experiences, shining a light on the “systematic exploitation by teams” that profit from sending the women to tailgates and other events where they’re subjected to harassment.

The US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Thursday rejected the defendants’ argument that Hayden Richardson, the cheerleader, failed to state a civil claim for sex trafficking. Some of her state law claims, however, were dismissed but with the possibility of them being amended and refiled.

Richardson says Pamela Bonnevier, the head ...

Friday, September 22, 2023

A Northwestern University lawsuit filed by a former cheerleader can forward on labor trafficking, forced labor, sex trafficking counts, a judge ruled.

EVANSTON, Ill. (WLS) -- Portions of a lawsuit filed against Northwestern University by a former cheerleader will move forward.

The cheerleader filed the lawsuit back in 2021, alleging she suffered sexual assaults and harassment at multiple events by fans, alumni and donors.

Now, a federal judge is allowing the lawsuit to move forward on several counts, including forced labor trafficking, forced labor and sex trafficking.

In a statement on Friday night, Northwestern said it takes Title IX complaints seriously and investigates them fully, adding, "While we respect the right of individuals to seek redress through the legal system, it is important to keep in mind that the lawsuit, filed more than two years ago, contains only allegations. The university remains confident that the allegations are baseless."

#northwestern #northwestern university #megxit #chicago #silent media #cheerleader #legal #sex trafficking #scholarships

26 notes · View notes

aronarchy · 1 year ago

Text

from “A New Age of Understanding: Allowing Self-Defense Claims for Battered Children Who Kill Their Abusers”

Jamie Heather Sacks 1994

Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy Volume 10 Issue 1 Article 25

Abused children who commit parricide are presented as criminals, yet surely they are victims first.

The shocking crime of parricide, the murder of a parent or close relative by a child, accounts for roughly 300-400 homicide cases each year in the United States. The notion that children could kill their parents is difficult for most people to accept. When children commit parricide, however, the crime often follows a lifetime of severe abuse that the children can no longer psychologically tolerate. Abused children view killing their parents as the only way to end the abuse.

Children who commit parricide often feel alienated by the courts, which they look to for justice. When these children assert self-defense to justify their actions, courts frequently reject the defense because it does not conform to classic self-defense theory, which encompasses only those who kill when confronted by an immediate and obvious threat to their lives. Children who kill their parents, however, normally strike when parents are the most vulnerable, such as when they are sleeping or when their backs are turned. Courts must recognize that in the mind of an abused child, “the imminent danger is more subtle and is only perceptible to an abused child.” Self-defense would then be available to a child who commits parricide as an effective defense, as in any other homicide case.

Once a self-defense claim is allowed, expert testimony is needed to aid the jury in interpreting the reasonableness of the child’s belief of imminent danger. Because the average juror has not been exposed personally to the physical and psychological effects of the abuse, he or she cannot understand the dynamics of the complex relationship between a batterer and a victim. A layman usually cannot comprehend the impact long-term abuse has upon a child’s emotional and psychological responses. Accordingly, expert testimony gives the jury critical information on battered children that they need to make an informed decision regarding reasonableness. Without the expert testimony, the jury is not able to evaluate properly a self-defense claim.

States are beginning to recognize the validity of the self-defense claim for battered women who kill after years of abuse, but a similar defense has not yet been extended to children, who kill abusive parents. The origin of the studies relating to abuse may explain why children receive treatment different from battered women. For example, the battered women’s syndrome originated by focusing on the psychological effects of abuse on women. In contrast, the battered child’s syndrome originated with medical research, focusing on the physical effects of abuse. Consequently, the syndromes are not viewed as equivalent. The psychological effects upon battered children mirror those of battered women, however, and self-defense claims in parricide cases are essentially identical to those asserted when battered women kill their abusers. It is therefore logical to extend the self-defense claim to children as well as women.

Courts are slowly recognizing that women and children should be treated similarly when they murder after years, or a lifetime, of family violence. In 1991, the Texas legislature became the first in the country to pass a gender-neutral statute allowing evidence of family violence to be admitted when a woman or a child kills. In 1993, the Supreme Court of Washington, in State v. Janes, concluded that “the battered child syndrome is the functional and legal equivalent of the battered woman syndrome.” The court held that evidence of the battered child syndrome is admissible to prove self-defense, and expert testimony is allowed to help the trier of fact understand this “little-known psychological problem.”

This Comment argues that battered children must be afforded the same defenses that are available to battered women. The effective assertion of a claim of self-defense requires the admission at trial of evidence of abuse, including expert testimony concerning the psychological effects of abuse on a child. Section I presents a profile of battered children, exploring the background and history of child abuse and parricide, the common characteristics of battered children who kill, and why they commit this crime. Section II discusses the traditional notions of self-defense and why an objective standard of reasonableness is inappropriate in parricide cases. Section II emphasizes the importance of expert testimony to aid the trier of fact when evaluating a parricide self-defense claim. By showing how battered women won the right to introduce expert testimony and comparing battered women with battered children, this Comment demonstrates the need for uniform treatment. Section III presents both past and present statutory and judicial responses to parricide cases, focusing on recent expansions of the battered child’s defense. Section III concludes with an analysis of how these recent developments reflect a new understanding of the battered child and lend further support to the argument for uniform treatment for all abuse victims who kill. Section IV offers a solution for admitting expert testimony relating to abuse in parricide cases, concluding that all abuse victims merit equal protection under the law. State legislatures must respond in order to achieve this goal.

I. BACKGROUND OF THE ABUSED CHILD

Although the problems of child abuse and parricide have existed for centuries, they have long been hidden from the mainstream of societal violence. Because child abuse is a disturbing crime, many people would rather not affirmatively acknowledge its existence. Furthermore, because children have a traditionally subordinate legal status, and because physical discipline is emphasized in child-rearing in the United States, the misconception that parents always act in the best interests of their children is pervasive in our society.

Child abuse was first recognized as a real problem in this country in the early 1960s. Child abuse became more easily detected with the development of X-rays and the adoption of preventive programs. As a result of increased awareness, society began to challenge the presumption that physical force is always a parent’s right and in the best interests of a child. Nevertheless, society still refuses today to fully acknowledge the extent and terrible reality of family violence.

The battered child syndrome is rooted in medical research. Dr. C. Henry Kempe coined the term “battered child syndrome” in a 1962 study. Kempe used the term to “characterize a clinical condition in young children who have received serious physical abuse, generally from a parent or foster parent.” Early studies of child abuse focused on the physical abuse, but eventually the psychological aspects were studied as well. Because of its medical origins, however, battered child’s syndrome has not been officially recognized as a psychological syndrome, which “may impede... formal acceptance by courts of the syndrome’s legitimacy as a psychological disorder.” However, because modern medicine treats battered child’s syndrome as a valid psychological syndrome, courts should recognize it in the interests of fairness when battered children are on trial for killing their abusers.

Battered children live in an environment where severe abuse is frequent and occurs randomly with or without warning. These children are physically, emotionally and/or sexually abused at levels that approach torture. Even if the physical or emotional abuse is not severe, “[the assumption that relatively infrequent or milder forms of battering will have little or no effect on the child’s development is inaccurate. On the surface, these families appear close. But parents who abuse their children often “perceive the act of conception as granting them absolute, unfettered control over the life they have created.” The family often isolates itself from outsiders who could detect abuse or render emotional and financial support. Even if other family members or outsiders do know about the abuse, they most likely will not intervene.

Abuse affects all aspects of a child’s life. Battered children withdraw and suppress their emotions, both in the dangerous environment of the home, and outside the home. Battered children frequently have a pervasive sense of helplessness that results from feeling trapped in a situation from which they cannot escape. In fact, abused children often develop a “‘concentration camp’ mentality where they feel they have no options and cannot leave home.” Battered children also suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), “an anxiety-related disorder which occurs in response to traumatic events outside the normal range of human experience.”

Another important characteristic of battered children is that of hypervigilance:

a hypervigilant child is acutely aware of his or her environment and remains on the alert for any signs of danger, events to which the unabused child may not attend. The child’s history of abusive encounters with his or her battering parent leads him or her to be overly cautious and to perceive danger in subtle changes in the parent’s expressions or mannerisms. Such “hypermonitoring” behavior, as it has been termed, means the child becomes sensitized to these subtle changes and constantly “monitors” the environment (particularly the abuser) for those signals which suggest danger is imminent.

To understand the violent response of battered children, a juror must understand hypervigilance, and that battered children may perceive subtle changes in their environment as creating a reasonable fear of imminent danger that an outsider would not detect. Furthermore, these “special perceptions” help to explain why children who have never before reacted violently to more overt stimuli kill their abusers in comparatively less threatening situations.

Precipitating events within the family typically begin about six months before the homicide. Unable to perceive an alternative other than murder to solve the conflict or to identify anyone who can help them, these children frequently feel that if they do not act, they may be the murder victim at the hands of their abuser. Because children are more vulnerable to the effects of violence and have no independent ability to support themselves, they cannot escape. They do not yet have the life experiences on which to draw, and are unable psychologically to manage the abuse by putting the battering into perspective. Thus, by the time a court gets involved, it is usually too late to devise less extreme solutions.

The murders almost always occur when the abusive parent has little opportunity to defend the attack. The circumstances often suggest an ambush, since the killing rarely occurs during verbal or physical abuse. This increases a child’s likelihood of success since it may be the only time the child can overpower the abuser. Another phenomenon is “overkill,” where a child shoots, clubs, or stabs the parent numerous times. Overkill has more to do with a child’s fear of its parent than an intent to inflict brutal injury.

Battered children who commit parricide are usually white middle class or upper-middle class boys between the ages of sixteen and eighteen. They generally do well in school and have no history of delinquency or violent, assaultive behavior. In many instances the children suffer “poly-abuse,” where they are physically, mentally, and often sexually abused over a period of years, and are likely to have witnessed the repeated abuse of other family members. The children’s target is most often the father, and the typical weapon is a gun kept in the home. Following the murder, family members frequently state that they understand the murder, and are relieved themselves. Furthermore, re-arrests of the children are rare; in fact, the children are not dangerous or violent members of society once they kill the abusive parent.

II. TRADITIONAL NOTIONS OF SELF-DEFENSE

Homicide is justifiable as self-defense if: (1) the defendant acted with a reasonable belief that he or she was in imminent danger of unlawful death or serious bodily harm; (2) the use of force was necessary to avoid the danger; and (3) the amount of force used was reasonable in relation to the threatened harm. Most states require that one be in fear of imminent danger at the moment of the killing. Since traditional notions of self-defense require that the defendant have a reasonable fear of death or substantial harm, the reasonableness of the defendant’s fear is measured against one of three standards. First, an objective standard may be used to measure the reasonableness of the defendant’s perceptions and reactions to the attack from the perspective of the ordinary person placed in similar circumstances. Second, a subjective standard, which is more sensitive to the particular defendant’s situation, requires only a good faith and honest belief on the part of the defendant in the need for self-defense. Third, a hybrid standard uses both objective and subjective analyses. The jury must consider the defendant’s perspective in evaluating what “a reasonable person” would do in similar circumstances.

A. The Inapplicability of Traditional Notions of Self-Defense in Parricide Cases

The traditional standard of self-defense is inappropriate with regard to parricide cases. First, the traditional self-defense doctrine “contemplates a man-to-man, stranger-to-stranger confrontation, which is characterized as immediately violent and physically threatening.” Children who kill their parents, however, do not fit this description. The children know the decedent and, in most cases, an outsider would not perceive the circumstances to be immediately violent or physically threatening. The children often kill in a nonconfrontational situation, where the threat does not seem immediate. Moreover, traditional self-defense is based on a one-time confrontation, whereas children who kill base their defense on a long history of abuse.

Second, and more importantly, the determination of “reasonableness” in parricide cases is extremely difficult. In applying an objective standard of reasonableness, the critical questions are whether the average person in the child’s position would believe that he or she was in imminent danger at the moment of the murder, and whether deadly force was necessary. This is problematic because “victims of domestic violence have a special feeling of imminence—they have to live with the victim.” These children constantly fear for their lives. Therefore, the factfinder must have knowledge of the abuse element to understand the child’s perceptions of danger and his or her need to use self-defense.

No person who honestly believes herself/himself to be in danger should be required to stop and assess the situation as others might see it. And no jury that finds a defendant actually believed in the necessity of his/her actions should be required to convict because a reasonable person might have believed otherwise.

Because an abuse victim’s perceptions cannot be judged against what an ordinary person would do in the same situation, “[t]he standard of reasonableness for a self-defense defense must be what is reasonable to an abuse victim.” A subjective or hybrid standard must be used, and it is critical that the factfinder understand the effects of the abuse.

B. Expert Testimony as an Aid to Traditional Notions of Self-Defense in Parricide Cases

In the traditional self-defense scenario, it is not necessary to rely on expert testimony to explain the perception of the accused at the moment of crisis when he or she resorts to the use of deadly force. The jurors can put themselves in the shoes of the defendant and place themselves at the murder scene to decide from their own experiences whether or not the use of deadly force was reasonable. In a nontraditional situation, however, the life experiences of the average juror are usually inadequate to support an informed evaluation of reasonableness, especially when the facts of the case involve an area in which an average juror has no knowledge. In such cases, the jury requires assistance from an expert witness. In almost every parricide case, the expert is needed to educate the judge and jury of the dynamics at work in a battering relationship.

Two elements are required for the admission of expert testimony. First, the factual issues must be “beyond the ken of laymen.” Second, the testimony must aid the trier of fact “in the search for truth.” Even if both of these requirements are met, to be admitted at trial the expert testimony must be relevant and its probative value must outweigh the unfair prejudicial effect to the opposing party.

Expert testimony is vital in the parricide case because the expert is able to explain to the jury all of the relevant considerations they must weigh when evaluating the circumstances under the traditional notions of self-defense. Because battered children perceive danger differently from other children, expert testimony aids the jury in understanding the unusual situation that battered children face. The jurors, comprised of ordinary laymen, are unlikely to comprehend the reasonableness of the child’s fear if they have never been in such an abusive situation. Expert testimony aids the jury in evaluating “the manner in which a battered child perceives the imminence of danger and his or her tendency to use deadly force to repel that danger.” This is especially crucial in the absence of a confrontation when an average juror would not see any threat or impending danger. Furthermore, expert testimony shows how the fear of imminent bodily harm was constantly present rather than appearing only during beatings. An expert explains the reasons for the child’s feelings of powerlessness, learned helplessness, being trapped, and theorizes why the child did not fight back even after repeated assaults. The expert also helps the jury understand critical factors in the child’s background. There are many psychological reasons why a child stays and endures the abuse. Understanding why an abused child remains in a relationship and does not get any help from outside sources is beyond the common knowledge of the jury and therefore must be explained.

C. The Admissibility of Expert Testimony in Trials of Battered Women and the Need for Uniform Treatment of Battered Women and Battered Children

Expert testimony on the effects of abuse has been admitted in cases involving battered women who kill their abusers. Cases of battered women successfully asserting self-defense claims has altered the understanding of self-defense. Battered women’s syndrome is defined as “a constellation of common characteristics which are manifested by women who have been abused physically and psychologically over a prolonged period of time by the dominant male in their lives.” Courts are divided over the admission of expert testimony concerning the battered women’s syndrome when the testimony is used as an affirmative defense by women who have killed their abusers. The general trend, however, is to recognize the relevance of the expert testimony. Experts attempt to describe the common social and psychological characteristics of battered women. “Expert testimony on the battered woman syndrome largely consists of a description of the syndrome itself, particularly its two main components—the ‘cycle theory of violence’ and the ‘theory of learned helplessness.’” This information educates the judge and the jury about the common experiences of battered women, and explains the context in which they act.

In State v. Kelly, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the defendant, convicted of murdering her husband, could introduce expert testimony on the subject of the battered women’s syndrome. The court found that expert testimony was admissible because the testimony related to the issue of whether the defendant honestly and reasonably believed she was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm at the time of the incident. Moreover, the conclusions of the expert were found reliable despite the novelty of the scientific research in the area. The court reasoned that the battered women’s syndrome was, not within the knowledge of the average juror, and an expert witness would clear up any myths and misconceptions the jurors might have. Kelly stands for the proposition that battered women can establish self-defense as a legal defense when they kill their spouse or lover after being abused.

Battered children deserve the same protection as battered women, if not more. Strong parallels exist between abused women who kill their tormentors and abused children who commit parricide. Battered women who kill usually do not have criminal records, are rarely arrested after they kill their abuser, and are not otherwise threatening to society. They suffer continual abuse, without outside help from society and have little chance of improving their circumstances. As with battered children, battered women feel that murdering their spouse or lover is the only logical way out of the situation, and both reasonably fear their abusers at times when an outsider would not see cause for such fear. An outsider does not know of the behavior patterns of the abuser. As a consequence, battered women and children are in essentially the same position when they lash out at their abuser, and both should be treated under a uniform and fair standard.

10 notes · View notes