3 ms·

Psychological trauma is one of the more complicated aspects of the human condition. Because such claims are so hard to verify and so rhetorically potent, I wou

Psychological trauma is one of the more complicated aspects of the human condition. Because such claims are so hard to verify and so rhetorically potent, I would be in favor of a rule that claims of having been traumatized cannot be presented as evidence in court.

freejazz 1y ago
Do you ever litigate torts? Being 'traumatized' is not a legal claim to which simply stating 'I was traumatized' serves as any evidence, so I'm not sure what it is you think you'd be sparing the world. It is obviously the case that anyone could testify regarding the facts of what happened that caused what they believed to be trauma, but I'm not sure where you got the idea that people simply say "I was traumatized" and then win a civil case or send someone to jail.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- hollerith 1y ago
  The rule I propose would disallow not only unsubstantiated claims, but also any argumentation or evidence that tries to substantiate the claim (including testimony by expert witnesses in my ideal the version of the rule) in legal proceedings. For example, the rule would not disallow "I was almost killed by the defendant's reckless action" and would not disallow "the defendant's attack put me fear for my life", but it would disallow, "and one of the effects of that experience was psychological trauma".
  - freejazz 1y ago
    Where do courts allow unsubstantiated claims? >but also any argumentation or evidence that tries to substantiate the claim (including testimony by expert witnesses in my ideal the version of the rule) in legal proceedings. So you wont also let people substantiate claims? What?? >For example, the rule would not disallow "I was almost killed by the defendant's reckless action" and would not disallow "the defendant's attack put me fear for my life", but it would disallow, "and one of the effects of that experience was psychological trauma". Have you ever been involved in such a lawsuit, out of curiosity? The intentional infliction of emotional distress has long been recognized as a tort. You have to substantiate it, of course.
    - hollerith 1y ago
      >The intentional infliction of emotional distress has long been recognized as a tort. Disallowing testimony about psychological trauma is consistent with criminalizing intentional attempts to cause it -- and in fact the vast majority of attempts to cause psychological trauma are probably covered by existing laws against assault. (Also, I hope everyone realizes that not all emotional distress is psychological trauma.)
      - freejazz 1y ago
        >Disallowing testimony about psychological trauma is consistent with criminalizing intentional attempts to cause it No it's not. IIED is civil law, btw. >and in fact the vast majority of attempts to cause psychological trauma are probably covered by existing laws against assault. Tired of hearing legal recommendations from individuals who don't know the basics, such as the difference between civil and criminal law. Or how evidence works.

freejazz 1y ago

Do you ever litigate torts? Being 'traumatized' is not a legal claim to which simply stating 'I was traumatized' serves as any evidence, so I'm not sure what it is you think you'd be sparing the world. It is obviously the case that anyone could testify regarding the facts of what happened that caused what they believed to be trauma, but I'm not sure where you got the idea that people simply say "I was traumatized" and then win a civil case or send someone to jail.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
hollerith 1y ago
The rule I propose would disallow not only unsubstantiated claims, but also any argumentation or evidence that tries to substantiate the claim (including testimony by expert witnesses in my ideal the version of the rule) in legal proceedings. For example, the rule would not disallow "I was almost killed by the defendant's reckless action" and would not disallow "the defendant's attack put me fear for my life", but it would disallow, "and one of the effects of that experience was psychological trauma".
- freejazz 1y ago
  Where do courts allow unsubstantiated claims? >but also any argumentation or evidence that tries to substantiate the claim (including testimony by expert witnesses in my ideal the version of the rule) in legal proceedings. So you wont also let people substantiate claims? What?? >For example, the rule would not disallow "I was almost killed by the defendant's reckless action" and would not disallow "the defendant's attack put me fear for my life", but it would disallow, "and one of the effects of that experience was psychological trauma". Have you ever been involved in such a lawsuit, out of curiosity? The intentional infliction of emotional distress has long been recognized as a tort. You have to substantiate it, of course.
  - hollerith 1y ago
    >The intentional infliction of emotional distress has long been recognized as a tort. Disallowing testimony about psychological trauma is consistent with criminalizing intentional attempts to cause it -- and in fact the vast majority of attempts to cause psychological trauma are probably covered by existing laws against assault. (Also, I hope everyone realizes that not all emotional distress is psychological trauma.)
    - freejazz 1y ago
      >Disallowing testimony about psychological trauma is consistent with criminalizing intentional attempts to cause it No it's not. IIED is civil law, btw. >and in fact the vast majority of attempts to cause psychological trauma are probably covered by existing laws against assault. Tired of hearing legal recommendations from individuals who don't know the basics, such as the difference between civil and criminal law. Or how evidence works.