Deprogramming refers to actions to persuade or force a person to abandon allegiance to a religious or political group.
Deprogramming is normally commissioned by concerned relatives of the follower, often parents of adult children, and is taken against his/her will, which has led to controversies over freedom of religion and civil rights.
Supporters of deprogramming portray the practice as an antidote to deceptive religious conversion practices by what they consider to be cults, such as mind control, brainwashing, thought reform, or coercive persuasion. They.

Deprogramming and kidnapping
The deprogramming accounts vary a lot regarding the use of force, with the most dramatic accounts coming from deprogrammees who returned to the group.
The deprogramming case observed by Dubrow-Eichel did not include any violence.
Sociologist Eileen Barker wrote in Watching for Violence:
"Although deprogramming has become less violent in the course of time ... Numerous testimonies by those who were subjected to a deprogramming describe how they were threatened with a gun, beaten, denied sleep and food and/or sexually assaulted. But one does not have to rely on the victims for stories of violence: Ted Patrick, one of the most notorious deprogrammers used by CAGs (who has spent several terms in prison for his exploits) openly boasts about some of the violence he employed; in November 1987, Cyril Vosper, a Committee member of the British cult-awareness group, FAIR, was convicted in Munich of "causing bodily harm" in the course of one of his many deprogramming attempts; and a number of similar convictions are on record for prominent members of CAGs elsewhere."
In Colombrito vs. Kelly, the Court accepted the definition of deprogramming by J. Le Moult published in 1978 in the Fordham Law Review:
"Deprogrammers are people who, at the request of a parent or other close relative, will have a member of a religious sect seized, then hold him against his will and subject him to mental, emotional, and even physical pressures until he renounces his religious beliefs. Deprogrammers usually work for a fee, which may easily run as high as $25,000. The deprogramming process begins with abduction. Often strong men muscle the subject into a car and take him to a place where he is cut from everyone but his captors. He may be held against his will for upward of three weeks. Frequently, however, the initial deprogramming only last a few days. The subject's sleep is limited and he is told that he will not be released until his beliefs meet his captors' approval. Members of the deprogramming group, as well as members of the family, come into the room where the victim is held and barrage him with questions and denunciations until he recants his newly found religion "
Exit counselor Carol Giambalvo writes in From Deprogramming to Thought Reform Consultation
"It was believed that the hold of the brainwashing over the cognitive processes of a cult member needed to be broken – or "snapped" as some termed it – by means that would shock or frighten the cultist into thinking again. For that reason in some cases cult leader's pictures were burned or there were highly confrontational interactions between deprogrammers and cultist. What was often sought was an emotional response to the information, the shock, the fear, and the confrontation. There are horror stories – promoted most vehemently by the cults themselves – about restraint, beatings, and even rape. And we have to admit that we have met former members who have related to us their deprogramming experience – several of handcuffs, weapons wielded and sexual abuse. But thankfully, these are in the minority – and in our minds, never justified. Nevertheless, deprogramming helped to free many individuals held captive to destructive cults at a time when other alternatives did not seem viable. "
Since the success of the deprogramming determined the legality of the endeavor (successful=converted member from his/her beliefs, or unsuccessful=traumatized kidnap victim), progressively extreme measures were taken.

Deprogramming and violence
An American named Ted Patrick was one of the most prominent early proponents of deprogramming. Most of the deprogramming cases took place in the United States, with only sporadic cases in Western Europe In the United States such opinions have been successfully challenged in court and are not supported by the American Psychological Association (APA).[2]

History
One of the points which fired deprogramming controversies was the fact that they were in the majority of cases successful See also Brainwashing controversy in new religious movements.
Deprogrammers claim that the voluntary participation is due to "mind control," a controversial theory that a person's thought processes can be changed by outside forces. They justify this intervention or "therapy" as necessary to bring the person out from under the influence of the group's "mind control." The existence of mind control is widely disputed. Modern behavorist psychology, however, can do much to explain the ability of external forces to control actions even if it has studied little regarding the internal thought processes associated with them (although relational framing and other theoretical constructs hedge into such territory). Present-day psychological principles suggest that traditional deprogramming approaches would almost certainly be inferior to other forms of intervention. Even supposing mind control is possible, it would be extremely difficult to prove to a legal standard that any individual person's mind has been controlled. In light of the legal and psychological issues, less intrusive and more patient-oriented interventions will likely replace this practice completely.
Involuntary deprogramming has fallen into disfavor because of its controversial aspects. A number of prominent anti-cult groups and persons have distanced themselves from the practice, noting that a less intrusive form of intervention called exit counseling has been shown to be more effective, less harmful, and less likely to lead to legal action. Organizations often referred to as cults, such as the Church of Scientology, insist that the practice is still commonplace, and they often make statements that their critics and opponents are "deprogrammers."
The American Civil Liberties Union published a statement in 1977 in which they position deprogramming as a violation of constitutional freedoms:
"ACLU opposes the use of mental incompetency proceedings, temporary conservatorship, or denial of government protection as a method of depriving people of the free exercise of religion, at least with respect to people who have reached the age of majority. Mode of religious proselytizing or persuasion for a continued adherence that do not employ physical coercion or threat of same are protected by the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment against action of state laws or by state officials. The claim of free exercise may not be overcome by the contention that 'brainwashing' or 'mind control' has been used, in the absence of evidence that the above standards have been violated."
In the 1980s in the United States, namely in New York (Deprogramming Bill, 1981), Kansas (Deprogramming Bill, 1982), and Nebraska (conservatorship legislation for 1985), lawmakers unsuccessfully attempted to legalize involuntary deprogramming.
Rev. Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church (many of whose members were targets of deprogramming) issued this statement in 1983:
The methods involved in "deprogramming" are like those used in Communist concentration camps. Using parents and relatives to entrap members, "deprogrammers" commit grown adults to mental hospitals with the supposed "illness" of holding of a minority religious belief. Other typical deprogramming techniques include kidnapping, illegal detention, violence, psychological harassment, sleep deprivation, inducement to use alcohol and drugs, sexual seduction and rape. By such threats, harassment and manipulation professional "deprogrammers" force members to renounce their faith. Many people are injured physically and psychologically because of this criminal activity. [3]

Controversy and related issues
During the 1990s, Rick Ross, a noted "cult" intervention advocate who took part in a number of deprogramming sessions, was sued by Jason Scott, a former member of a group called the Life Tabernacle Church, after an attempt at intervention after an abduction was unsuccessful. The jury awarded Scott $875,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages against the Cult Awareness Network, and $2,500,000 against Ross, which were later settled for $5,000 and 200 hours of services "as an expert consultant and intervention specialist" (Scott vs. Ross, Workman, Simpson, Cult Awareness Network). The judgement was used to force CAN into bankruptcy, and its name and assets were purchased by a representative of the Church of Scientology, which had been frequently criticized by CAN, shortly afterwards. This case was seen as effectively closing the door on the practice of involuntary deprogramming.
Ted Patrick was found guilty of kidnapping Roberta McElfish, a 25-year old woman of Tucson, Ariz., in order to "deprogram" her in 1980 from a group known as the Wesley Thomas Family.
In the case of Kathy Crampton, she went back to the group Love Israel several days after the apparently successful deprogramming. Patrick was charged for kidnapping, but he was acquitted with the reasoning:
"[w]here parents are, as here, of the reasonable and intelligent belief that they were not physically capable of recapturing their daughter from existing, imminent danger, then the defense of necessity transfers or transposes to the constituted agent, the person who acts upon their belief under such conditions. Here that agent is the Defendant [Ted Patrick] ((District Court of the United States 1974: 79; New York Times 1974).
Steve Hassan, author of the book Combatting Cult Mind Control, states that he took part in a number of deprogrammings in the late 1970s, and has spoken out against them since 1980 . Hassan states that he has not participated in any deprogrammings since then, even though page 114 of Combatting, Hassan states that depogrammings can be kept as last resort if all other attempts fail. He is one of the major proponents of exit counseling as a form of intervention therapy, and he refers to his method as "strategic intervention therapy."

People and Places
Deprogramming and exit counseling, sometimes seen as one and the same, are distinct approaches to helping a person to leave a "cult". Some people blur the distinctions on purpose: some practioners do so to avoid criticism; some opponents do so to intensify criticism.
Proponents of the distinction, however, state that deprogramming entails coercion and confinement. In exit counseling the cult member is free to leave at any time. Deprogramming typically costs $10,000 or more, mainly because of the expense of a security team. Exit counseling typically costs $2,000 to $4,000, including expenses, for a three-to-five day intervention, although cases requiring extensive research of little-known groups can cost much more. Deprogramming, especially when it fails, entails considerable legal and psychological risk (e.g., a permanent alienation of the cultist from his or her family). The psychological and legal risks in exit counseling are much smaller. Although deprogrammers prepare families for the process, exit counselors tend to work more closely with families and expect them to contribute more to the process; that is, exit counseling requires that families establish a reasonable and respectful level of communication with their loved one before the exit counseling proper can begin. Because they rely on coercion, which is illegal except in the case of conservatorship and is generally viewed as unethical, deprogrammers' critiques of the unethical practices of cults will tend to have less credibility with cult members than the critiques of exit counselors.[4]

Deprogramming and exit counseling
The section could be improved by integrating relevant items into the main text and removing inappropriate items.
The 70s was a TV miniseries about four friends in the 1970s. One of the friends, played by Amy Smart, suffering a series of failures which damaged her self-esteem. She joins an apparent spiritualist group and changes her name, but does not realize it is under control of Jim Jones. The other friends wish to get her away from what they see as a cult, but express concern that the deprogrammer hired seems militaristic and freaky. Another of the friends, played by Guy Torry does the deprogramming himself, showing her pictures and films of her childhood.
An episode of The Simpsons called Burns' Heir dealt with the family trying to steal Bart away from Mr. Burns, who they believe is taking over Bart's life and upbringing. A deprogrammer who works for Conformco Brain Deprogrammers (which is owned by Mrs. Fields' Cookies) is hired. By mistake, the deprogrammer abducts Hans Moleman and gets him to believe Homer and Marge are his parents.
In the Simpsons episode The Joy of Sect, Homer Simpson is violently kidnapped from a UFO religious facility and then deprogrammed by Groundskeeper Willie, Reverend Lovejoy and Ned Flanders with the help of a baseball bat and beer.

Deprogramming in popular culture

Opposition to cults and new religious movements
Intervention (counseling) See also

Bibliography

Holy Smoke! 1999 movie based on the book with the same name