Nina Peršak, Pathways to the criminalisation of emotional distress: An offence- and harm-based typology, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, Volume 63, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2020.100416.
"The article examines the criminalisation of causing negative emotional states in others and pursues a principled response to the question under which conditions, in a liberal democratic society, it is legitimate to criminalise human conduct that leads to emotional distress in others. Its main aim is to develop an exploratory typology of different types of legally-relevant emotional distress, based on existing offences and informed by the criteria drawn from criminal law philosophy."
"From March 2019, psychological violence is finally equated with physical violence in Denmark through a new law. […] In 2010, the French government criminalized psychological violence in intimate relationships, with the punishable offense carrying a maximum sentence of three years in prison and a €45,000 fine (approximately US $51,345). In England and Wales, coercive control in intimate relationships became a criminal offense in 2015. Last year, Scotland also adopted a similar measure."
"In some jurisdictions, psychological abuse is explicitly criminalized. France, for example, passed a law in 2010 making psychological violence in relationships a criminal offense. Similarly, some U.S. states have laws that specifically address emotional abuse, particularly in the context of domestic violence or child abuse.
But for every country or state that recognizes psychological abuse as a standalone crime, there are many more that don’t. In these places, psychological abuse often falls under broader categories of abuse or is addressed through civil rather than criminal law. […]
But here’s the rub: the burden of proof in criminal cases is high. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a tough standard to meet when dealing with something as intangible as psychological abuse. It’s like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands – possible, but incredibly challenging.
This is where psychological abuse lawsuits in civil court can sometimes provide an alternative path to justice. The burden of proof is lower, typically requiring only a “preponderance of evidence.” It’s not perfect, but for many victims, it’s a more accessible route to holding their abusers accountable."
Gaslighting is a form of lying. Lying is not illegal in most countries, with some exceptions. Lying under oath in court or lying to federal investigators in the USA is illegal. Lying as a form of deception for monetary gain can be illegal. So I think an in depth answer to your question is probably going to be a bit complicated and nuanced.
The same applies to Gaslighting itself, as a form of Psychological warfare. Psychological warfare is legal in most countries but there are exceptions depending on how it is being applied. For example, if people were being gaslit in a way that effectively incites violence that would be illegal in most countries. Whether or not the person or organization is prosecuted may depend on who is doing it.
Do you think, for example, that universities should be allowed to make professors believe their research has more impact on the world than it really does, just because they don't want them to quit? After all, they need them to teach.
I don't know the answer to that. I guess if the professors believe they have been manipulated in a way that causes financial harm then perhaps they can prove they have a civil case. I think the questions are what harm is being done, can it be proven in a court of law and is it worth their time and money to pursue?
It does not have to be, but is otherwise really hard to prove. If you are referring to psychological damage those cases typically have very low success rates. I am thankfully not a lawyer. Perhaps lawyers here can chime in on their recent success rates regarding psychological damages.
Either way, damages must be proven and the legal system does not necessarily operate in the same way that most people reach their own conclusions.
Nina Peršak, Pathways to the criminalisation of emotional distress: An offence- and harm-based typology, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, Volume 63, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2020.100416.
"The article examines the criminalisation of causing negative emotional states in others and pursues a principled response to the question under which conditions, in a liberal democratic society, it is legitimate to criminalise human conduct that leads to emotional distress in others. Its main aim is to develop an exploratory typology of different types of legally-relevant emotional distress, based on existing offences and informed by the criteria drawn from criminal law philosophy."
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/new-law-against-emotional-abu...
"From March 2019, psychological violence is finally equated with physical violence in Denmark through a new law. […] In 2010, the French government criminalized psychological violence in intimate relationships, with the punishable offense carrying a maximum sentence of three years in prison and a €45,000 fine (approximately US $51,345). In England and Wales, coercive control in intimate relationships became a criminal offense in 2015. Last year, Scotland also adopted a similar measure."
https://neurolaunch.com/is-psychological-abuse-a-crime/
"In some jurisdictions, psychological abuse is explicitly criminalized. France, for example, passed a law in 2010 making psychological violence in relationships a criminal offense. Similarly, some U.S. states have laws that specifically address emotional abuse, particularly in the context of domestic violence or child abuse.
But for every country or state that recognizes psychological abuse as a standalone crime, there are many more that don’t. In these places, psychological abuse often falls under broader categories of abuse or is addressed through civil rather than criminal law. […]
But here’s the rub: the burden of proof in criminal cases is high. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a tough standard to meet when dealing with something as intangible as psychological abuse. It’s like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands – possible, but incredibly challenging.
This is where psychological abuse lawsuits in civil court can sometimes provide an alternative path to justice. The burden of proof is lower, typically requiring only a “preponderance of evidence.” It’s not perfect, but for many victims, it’s a more accessible route to holding their abusers accountable."
But it is. I wouldn't try testing my assertion.
Gaslighting is a form of lying. Lying is not illegal in most countries, with some exceptions. Lying under oath in court or lying to federal investigators in the USA is illegal. Lying as a form of deception for monetary gain can be illegal. So I think an in depth answer to your question is probably going to be a bit complicated and nuanced.
The same applies to Gaslighting itself, as a form of Psychological warfare. Psychological warfare is legal in most countries but there are exceptions depending on how it is being applied. For example, if people were being gaslit in a way that effectively incites violence that would be illegal in most countries. Whether or not the person or organization is prosecuted may depend on who is doing it.
Do you think, for example, that universities should be allowed to make professors believe their research has more impact on the world than it really does, just because they don't want them to quit? After all, they need them to teach.
I don't know the answer to that. I guess if the professors believe they have been manipulated in a way that causes financial harm then perhaps they can prove they have a civil case. I think the questions are what harm is being done, can it be proven in a court of law and is it worth their time and money to pursue?
Why does the harm need to be framed in financial terms?
It does not have to be, but is otherwise really hard to prove. If you are referring to psychological damage those cases typically have very low success rates. I am thankfully not a lawyer. Perhaps lawyers here can chime in on their recent success rates regarding psychological damages.
Either way, damages must be proven and the legal system does not necessarily operate in the same way that most people reach their own conclusions.
You're kidding right? My mind thrives under gaslight.
There's a big difference between gaslighting yourself and being gaslit by someone else.
Can you explain to me right here? I'm dumb.
[dead]