Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Child molestation (1)
- Duty of care (1)
- Federal Rules of Evidence 413 (1)
- Federal Rules of Evidence 414 (1)
- Federal Rules of Evidence 415 (1)
-
- Illusory memories (1)
- Inducement (1)
- Procedural Due Process violation (1)
- Repressed memory (1)
- Sexual abuse (1)
- Sexual assault (1)
- Sexual violence (1)
- Therapists (1)
- Violation of the Eighth Amendment protection of punishment for status (1)
- Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause (1)
- Violation of the protection against double jeopardy (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Therapists' Liability To The Falsely Accused For Inducing Illusory Memories Of Childhood Sexual Abuse - Current Remedies And A Proposed Statute, Joel Jay Finer
Therapists' Liability To The Falsely Accused For Inducing Illusory Memories Of Childhood Sexual Abuse - Current Remedies And A Proposed Statute, Joel Jay Finer
Journal of Law and Health
While sexual abuse of children has always been a real and horrific phenomenon (a fact unrecognized until relatively recently), the issue this Article will explore is whether, and under what circumstances, a person wrongly accused has, or should have, one or more causes of action against a therapist for culpably inducing the pseudomemory. To refine and make more rational legal actions by persons falsely accused of childhood sexual molestation (arguably justified under existing legal doctrine), this Article will propose specific legislation authorizing a lawsuit under codified circumstances and conditions.
Branding The Sexual Predator: Constitutional Ramifications Of Federal Rules Of Evidence 413 Through 415, Margaret C. Livnah
Branding The Sexual Predator: Constitutional Ramifications Of Federal Rules Of Evidence 413 Through 415, Margaret C. Livnah
Cleveland State Law Review
This Note seeks to address both the potential constitutional consequences of the newly passed Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 414 and the problems that these revisions were designed to remedy. Section II will introduce the history of the passage of these controversial revisions as primarily a political process and one which bypassed the standard rules of practice. Section III will address the procedural violations and the troubling inconsistency of the new rules with the federal courts' interpretation of the other Federal Rules of Evidence. Section IV of this Note will address the substantive constitutional issues presented by these amendments, …