Should American Criminal Law Recognize Coercive Indoctrination as a Mitigating Factor?

Publication Date

2026

Publication Title

Extreme Beliefs and Responsibility

Document Type

Book Section

Abstract

I try to determine whether individuals who commit serious crimes should be eligible for mitigation if they were coercively indoctrinated into believing that their criminal action was the overall right thing to do. Despite its conceptual proximity to universally recognized defenses like necessity, insanity, and duress, indoctrination is rarely recognized by courts, reflecting an underlying assumption that it does not completely negate culpability. While I agree that coercive indoctrination rarely qualifies as a full excuse because the offender typically knew better, I argue that it still can reduce responsibility. Because coercively implanted beliefs and values act as a tough competitor to an offender's moral and legal knowledge, an indoctrinated individual is less morally responsible for acquiring those beliefs than if they had acquired them voluntarily, making them correspondingly less culpable for any resulting crimes.

Book Editors

Rik Peels, Naomi Kloosterboer, and Christopher Ranalli

Edition

1

Publisher

Oxford Univ. Press

Link to Full Text


Share

COinS