This might get me flamed, but did anyone see the Frank Skinner Show last night?
As well as being very funny, it had Paul McKenna on it, and Frank was asking if he’d ever used his powers to get a woman into bed. He said it could improve your chances. Thing is, he made his fiance think he looked like Mel Gibson (and was then surprised that she wanted to marry him :rolleyes: ).
If you got someone into bed by either finding who their sex-idol was, and making them think you looked like them, or just saying “You will have sex with me” in a spooky voice, is there a difference between the two, and are either of them acceptable (if not morallym then in a court of law? )
Hypnosis isn’t complete mind control. When you’re hypnotized, you are put into a state where you are prone to the suggestions of the hypnotizer. At some level, though, the hypnotizee is aware of the things going on around him. He cannot be made to do things he would not do under normal (nonhypnotized) conditions.
I accept that (even though I don’t know the facts, that seems to be the generally perceived notion), but if you were made to believe someone was your fantasy, then I think you would be willing, both to accept that someone was your fantasy (if you fancied Cameron Diaz/Brad Pitt, would you not readily accept that they were in the same room as you?) and therefore to get them into bed. In the same way, you would not readily murder someone, but if you were made to believe that the person next to you was Hitler, and the year was 1936 or something, a lot of people not inclined to murder might be persuaded to rid the world of evil and save 6 million Jews.
Eewl, hell no! Who knows where (fill in the blank)'s been?! :: puking smiley:: Yech!
Seriously, now. To answer your question: would a hypnosis defense stand up in court? Probably not. The victim was made to believe that their partner was literally someone they weren’t. I can’t think of any legal precedent, but there are consent issues here.
<DeForest Kelly> Dammit, Jim, I’m a psychology tutor, not a lawyer! </DeForest Kelly>
So it’s on to time travel now, eh?
Actually, if it’s bodily harm you want someone to inflict on someone else, you don’t need hypnosis at all. Stanley Milgram did a famous experiment on obedience; you can find a summary here.
I guess what I’m basically saying is there should be some kind of report on hypnosis. I too agree that unless there were witnesses etc, hypnosis would be very unlikely to stand up in court as a valid reason for murder/rape, etc, and yet using deceptive practices, I’m sure it could be achieved. Is this not a serious loophole in the law? It’s surely not too hysterical to suggest that using hypnosis in private, hypnotists could get people to carry out their bidding (be it murder, robbery, etc) and be in NO WAY held responsible. Even accepting the fact that people would not do something against their will, they could surely be persuaded that the money in the bank was rightfully theirs, and had been stolen from them (a lot of people would surely consider using threats of force to get it back a reasonable measure), the argument of Hitler stands for murder (if you want to avoid time travel ;), how about convincing them it was Saddam Hussein - a lot of people would surely consider killing him, even if they are not normally inclined to kill). I probably sound really dodgy with this thread, but I find it incredible that this possible loophole could stand…
Wait, I’m confused here. If both the hypnotizer and the hypnotizee both say that hypnosis took place, why are any witnesses needed? Or do you mean that the hypnotizer would deny any hypnosis took place and say (in this example) that it was consensual sex?
What kinds of deceptive practices do you mean?
Actually, it doesn’t matter. I don’t care how it gets spun-- there’s no way rape and murder could have or will ever have valid reasons for being committed.
Well, no, since the hypnosis scenario you described is not possible.
Yes, it is hysterical to suggest that! For that to happen, you’d need a corrupt hypnotist, for starters. Then you’d need to have a patient foolish enough to keep seeing him. Most importantly, this patient would also have to be already willing (at least in part) to commit crimes. Hypnosis CANNOT make you do something you don’t want to do. Hypnotized people are conscious and aware of the things happenening to them and what they are doing. I know; I have been both the hypnotizer and the hypnotizee.
The hypnotizer-hypnotizee relationship is interactive. Neither one is ever passively involved. The hypnotizee is not some mindless drone of the hypnotizer; rather, the hypnotizee actively takes in the suggestions suggested by the hypnotizer. In turn, the hypnotizer is reliant on the hypnotizee’s willingness to follow the suggestions he puts forth. No cooperation, no results. Therefore, the actions of a hypnotized person are equal parts the responsibility of the hypnotizer and the hypnotized person himself.
No way, nope, nada, non. Hypnosis is suggestion, not thought control or change.
I suppose it’s the term “suggestion” that might be causing the misconceptions. The suggestions I use when I demonstrate hypnosis are primarily sensory suggestions: I set up scenarios for people to imagine and have them visualize their interaction with the scenario. At no time do I address their beliefs, their morals, or their opinions on anything. It’s possible that professional hypnotists do touch on those things, but I doubt they try to change them, much less try to bring about those changes via hypnosis alone.
In fact, I’d wager a pretty penny that most credible hypnotists use hypnosis primarily for its relaxing effects on the patient. (If I’m not mistaken, hypnosis is also used in behavior therapy, for the treatment of phobias and the like.) I don’t think it’s ever used for radical changes in behavior such as you describe.
Think about how deeply your senses of right and wrong are ingrained in you. What would it take to convince you that stealing and murdering are acceptable actions for you? I sure as hell hope it’d take a lot more than a few hours of hypnosis.
Let’s say I was hypnotized into thinking my neighbor was Saddam Hussein. (Actually, he does kinda look like him… ) Let’s say I’m convinced, through hypnosis, that the bastard deserves to die for the misery he’s caused, and one day, I kill him. Does it matter who the I thought my neighbor was? I still killed him, and it was something I was aware I was doing. Both I and my hypnotizer would be responsible for the murder.
You sound genuinely curious about hypnosis. I’d be happy to show you an outline of what it is I do when I demonstrate hypnosis in my psych classes.
Well, no, because it’s more or less impossible. There’s no mention of this in law because it’s unnecessary; what you’re suggesting can’t really happen.
To use a semi-circular argument, if this was a problem, where are all the hypnosis crimes? You’re vastly overestimating the power of hypnosis.
Getting away from the subject of rape, there’s no “loophole” with respect to, say, persuading someone to rob the bank. If I could actually hypnotize you into robbing a bank, I am flat-out guilty of robbery. There’s no loophole at all, and I cannot imagine how I could hypnotize you without you knowing who I am. Whether or not YOU’D be guilty is an issue for the court to decide, but if you were really acting with a genuine belief in hypnosis-created deceptions, you’d technically be innocent. But where’s the loophole? They’ve got me, and they might get you, too.
Great reply! I’ll try and address some of the points.
I do mean that the hypnotiser would deny. If he admitted, then obviously he would be found guilty. My question is if it was a case of one person’s word against another, then is that not cause for reasonable doubt?
The kind of deceptive practice as described in the above posts.
murder: You describe it yourself in the last post, but here is another scenario. You know someone’s relative was murdered. Convince them that the person standing next to them is the murderer, and a lot of people would readily kill the person. Is this feasible? I’m not asking whether any crediblehypnotist would do such a thing, merely whether it is possible. You are then not going against someone’s rational thoughts on murder, etc.
rape: as described above. If you know someone would bed Mel Gibson, convince them that you are Mel Gibson! That person would then bed you, even if they would not normally, and yet they are still not going against their natural instincts. Are you saying this could not happen, no matter how uncreditable the hypnotist? (n.b. I’m not saying a regular hypnotist WOULD do this, merely speculating whether some unscrupulous person with the necessary skills COULD do it.
Why not?
Say you have a corrupt hypnotist (I’m sure there are some around). Why would they have to keep seeing him. Would once not be enough?
I’d say, given the circumstances given above, most people would be willing in part to commit these crimes, in that some people would kill Saddam Hussein given the chance, or the murderer of their child, etc. I am aware that Hypnosis cannot make you do something you don’t want to do (or I am prepared to accept that as fact, even though I have never been hypnotised), but I am interested as to whether a hypnotizee (good word), who would only do something under certain rare circumstances, can be persuaded that those rare circumstances are present.
Surely, under the circumstances outlined by me above, these factors would not be broken.
If professional hypnotists touch on these things, then they CAN be done? Even though you doubt they try to change them, is it possible that they can?
Credible or not, it’s not what they do that interests me, it’s what they COULD do! Not all hypnotists ARE credible. If it’s used for behaviour therapy, then surely it CAN and DOES influence behaviour. Only the credibility of the hypnotist influences what he suggests.
I’d say it did matter who you thought your neighbour was. You had been tricked into killing an innocent person you would not otherwise have killed. Your hypnotiser would be more responsible than you, IMO, and yet I’m not convinced it would ever stick in court, and you’d be put away, while he/she would walk away.
I’m genuinely curious about the legal ramifications of hypnosis, when used to commit crimes, etc. To be honest, I would not allow myself to submit to a hypnotist, the whole thing freaks me out, but maybe that’s cos of what I think an unscrupulous person could use it for. (Not that I’m saying you would, you understand ) I’m sure in the right hands, it can be really beneficial. Still sounds scary to me…
Don’t know where they are, and I guess you’re right, cos otherwise I’m sure someone would have tried it as an excuse (‘wasn’t me guv’) when they got caught with the gun in their hand, but it sure sounds plausible to me.
In the circumstance you describe, you say you are “flat-out guilty of robbery” for hypnotising me to do it. Would you get FOUND guilty though? If you denied it, could I persuade the court that you had hypnotised me? I could say it was you, you could deny it. Is there a court that would believe me?
If it could be done, maybe. It can’t. Mind control is pure science fiction.
Whether or not I’d be convicted depends on the evidence before the court. But that’s true for ANY crime - if I get you to rob the bank without using hypnosis you still have to prove I did it. There’s no “loophole” in the law.
Are you sure? Do you know about hypnotism? Know any good sites about its limitations, etc?
If you get me to rob the bank without using hypnosis, then obviously I wanted to do so. My point is, if you trick me, through hypnosis, into robbing a bank, when I did not want to do so, can I prove you hypnotised me? I know I “still have to prove… it”, but is that possible?
you are going a far no?
Is it really possible to hypnotise someone and make that person rob a bank?
the “rape theory” sounds a bit more possible but I wonder whether it could be reported as a rape as the girl wouldn’t rememebr anything when she wakes up would she?
BTW there was a case when a guy accused of rape was released because he was wearing a condom while raping the girl and they could have no proof that rape there was…a bit scary no?
No, you do not have to prove I hypnotized you. For me to be convicted of robbery, the court must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I participated in the robbery.
They can prove this by proving I hypnotized you - or just by proving I helped plan the robbery or counselled you to carry it out. I don’t have to have hypnotized you to be guilty. If the bank gets robbed and I drove you to the bank, drew the escape map, and am found with $20,000 in stolen loot in my pocket, whether or not I hypnotized you isn’t going to matter much at the trial.
In this scenario, the issue of hypnosis is simply irrelevant to my guilt. If I tell you to rob a bank and I take the money you robbed, I’m guilty. It doesn’t matter if you were under hypnosis or not.
The question, then, is whether or not the hypnotized person is under hypnosis. My understanding of hypnosis, as explained to me by doctors of psychology, is that a person under hypnosis is still a conscious individual who understands the difference between right and wrong, and so would be able to legally form intent (and hence is culpable.)
Surely for me to be innocent, I would have to prove I had been duped into the robbery, and was not acting as I otherwise would. I would then at least get diminished responsibility. If you had just talked me into it, and I was not hypnotised, I could not claim this. The court proving that you participated would not help me, unless I proved TO the court that your participation led directly to my participation against my free-thinking wishes.
No, but that would surely be easier to prove than if you hypnotised me. My main question is whether hypnosis leaves proof. If someone does something under hypnosis, is that possible to find out at a later date. eg a hypnotist gets someone to run around pretending they’re a rabbit. Is there a way after the event you could test that person to find out if they were hypnotised or were merely pretending to be hypnotised?
It’s irrelevant to YOUR guilt, not to mine. You say “If I tell you to rob a bank and I take the money you robbed, I’m guilty.” I know YOU’RE guilty, am I?
Would they still be culpable if the person they killed was innocent, even though they thought they had killed someone they had been persuaded had a gun and was about to kill them? (another e.g.) Could they not claim self-defence, even if that person was not armed, because their mind had been manipulated, and they were acting under the influence of someone else. Under my reasoning, if a hypnotist can persuade someone that they look like Mel Gibson, they can persuade someone means them harm even if they don’t.
Re: is making someone think you’re Mel Gibson so that they’ll sleep with you rape?
Yes. I believe there’s a precedent here–a burglar broke into some woman’s home and, in the dark and half-asleep, she thought it was her husband coming home and had “consensual” sex with him.
I have no cite. I’m so ashamed.
and,
BTW there was a case when a guy accused of rape was released because he was wearing a condom while raping the girl and they could have no proof that rape there was…a bit scary no?
I’m almost certain there would still be evidence (though not nec. DNA evidence from the semen)–tears, bruising, etc. Maybe not evidence to nail one individual over another, but likely enough to demonstrate that the woman was raped.
BTW, I think you may be confusing this with the case where the woman, who was about to be raped, asked her attacker to wear a condom (out of fear of getting HIV). In court, the defense argued that this made it a consensual act. I don’t recall how it turned out.
I am no expert on hypnosis. But I know something about the law.
First, as to the OP, to give Virginia law as an example, Va. Code § 18.2-61, Rape, provides as follows:
If a person were hypnotized such that they lacked ordinary capacity to understand who they were really having sex with, that is black-letter law rape. It is a question of fact for the jury (or judge in a bench trial) to decide if the hypnotist actually could do such a thing, and I express no opinion on that issue here. But, assuming it was done, it’s rape.
Now, if I hypnotize someone into raping a third person - or if I pick two random people off the street and make each believe that the other is their spouse, and thus get my jollies while they ravish each other - I am guilty of rape twice over. And the people are not guilty of anything, because they lacked the requisite mental state to be guilty of any crime.
Same deal for the bank robbery - if I make someone else rob the bank, then I’m guilty of bank robbery even if I never set foot in the bank.
Finally, as to plastiktom’s “BTW there was a case when a guy accused of rape was released because he was wearing a condom while raping the girl and they could have no proof that rape there was…a bit scary no?”
That’s an issue for the trier of fact to determine. A jury may convict for rape without any evidence at all except for the complaining witness’ testimony. If the victim testifies that she was raped, and that the accused was the one that did it, that by itself is legally sufficient to sustain a conviction.
There are basically three defenses to a rape charge: (1) It never happened; (2) She consented; or (3) It may have happened, but it wasn’t me. (What we used to cynically call the SODDI defense: Some Other Dude Did It).
The condom might help in a “it never happened” type defense or a SODDI defense. But it’s by no means a guarantee of acquittal.
Thanks Bricker. As above, I acknowledge that it is in fact rape, because the victim has been made to have sex by false suggestion, when the victim would not otherwise have engaged in sex. However, my question is whether this would stand up in court. Again, with the bank robbery, I know the hypnotist is guilty, as he has set the whole thing up, and emerged with the money, but can it be proved (assuming that he is not caught with money in hand, in which case it would be pretty obvious). Basically, could “I was hypnotised, your honour” stand up in court as a viable get-out clause, acquitting the hypnotizee and incriminating the hypnotist? If so, what evidence would allow this? If not, why has it not been done by some unscrupulous person.
For those still thinking it could not be done, that a hypnotist could not make someone rob a bank, try this scenario:
The hypnotist suggests the person that the bank is actually a stage, and that the people in the bank are all actors. The gun is a prop, etc, and it is an ad-lib production of a staged bank-robbery. Could the person still not be persuaded to go through with it?
Again, I know nothing about hypnosis. Since I suspect most of the jury wouldn’t either, I imagine the proponent of evidence like that would retain an expert to testify as to the details and inferences that could be drawn. For example, the expert might himself be a hypnotist, who could testify that when he hypnotized the accused, he was able to lead him through recalling the first hypnosis session in which the insidious suggestions were made. The prosecution would of course be free to impeach that expert or bring in their own.
That’s how the trial would work. I have never come across an actual claim of coercion-by-hypnosis, and suspect the lack shows that hypnosis doesn’t really work like that. But I don’t know.
