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.
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".
>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.
>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.)
>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.
