THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN- 2693-0803)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
1
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
PUBLISHED DATE: - 01-11-2024
PAGE NO.: - 1-6
JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVES ON FORENSIC
HYPNOSIS: A REVIEW OF CASE LAW AND
BEST PRACTICES
Dr. Henry Wilson
University of North Georgia, Department of Criminal Justice, Dahlonega, GA 30040, USA
INTRODUCTION
Forensic hypnosis has emerged as a controversial
yet intriguing tool in the field of criminal justice,
aimed at enhancing the accuracy of witness
recollections and improving the retrieval of
potentially
crucial
information
in
legal
proceedings. By utilizing hypnosis, practitioners
seek to unlock repressed memories or details that
may not be readily accessible to individuals,
thereby aiding law enforcement and the judicial
system in the pursuit of truth. However, the
application of forensic hypnosis raises significant
questions regarding its reliability, ethical
implications, and admissibility as evidence in court.
The legal landscape surrounding forensic hypnosis
is complex and varies widely across jurisdictions.
Landmark cases have shaped the rules governing
the use of hypnotically induced testimonies,
resulting in differing standards for admissibility in
various courts. For instance, while some
jurisdictions
accept
hypnotically
retrieved
memories under specific conditions, others may
categorically reject them due to concerns about
suggestibility and the potential for memory
distortion. This inconsistency highlights the
necessity for a critical examination of existing case
law and judicial perspectives on the use of hypnosis
in legal contexts.
In addition to legal considerations, the ethical
dimensions of forensic hypnosis demand careful
scrutiny. Issues such as the potential for creating
false memories, the influence of the hypnotist on
the subject, and the implications of suggestibility
complicate the ethical landscape for practitioners.
As forensic hypnosis continues to be employed in
various criminal cases, it is imperative for legal
professionals, law enforcement, and practitioners
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Open Access
Abstract
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN- 2693-0803)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
2
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
to adhere to best practices that prioritize scientific
validity and ethical integrity.
This review aims to explore the judicial
perspectives on forensic hypnosis by examining
key case law, identifying best practices, and
highlighting the ongoing challenges and debates
within the field. By synthesizing existing research
and legal precedents, this paper seeks to provide
valuable insights into the responsible application
of forensic hypnosis in the judicial system,
ultimately fostering a deeper understanding of its
potential benefits and pitfalls. As the intersection of
psychology and law continues to evolve, a
comprehensive examination of forensic hypnosis
will contribute to more informed legal decision-
making and improved practices within the courts.
METHOD
This review of judicial perspectives on forensic
hypnosis was conducted through a systematic
analysis of relevant case law, scholarly articles, and
professional
guidelines.
The
methodology
encompassed several key steps to ensure a
comprehensive examination of the topic.
Literature Search and Selection Criteria
A thorough literature search was performed using
multiple databases, including legal databases
(Westlaw, LexisNexis) and academic platforms
(PubMed, Google Scholar, and JSTOR). The search
strategy employed keywords such as “forensic
hypnosis,” “judicial perspectives,” “case law,”
“memory retrieval,” “admissibility,” and “ethical
considerations.” The inclusion criteria focused on
peer-reviewed articles, legal case studies, and
guidelines published within the last two decades
that specifically addressed the role of forensic
hypnosis in legal proceedings. Exclusion criteria
involved materials that lacked empirical evidence
or did not pertain directly to the legal implications
of hypnosis.
Case Law Analysis
The review included an in-depth examination of
landmark legal cases involving forensic hypnosis to
identify the evolving standards for admissibility in
different jurisdictions. Cases such as People v.
Hughes and State v. Hurd were analyzed for their
impact on judicial acceptance of hypnotically
retrieved testimonies. The analysis focused on the
judicial reasoning, expert testimony, and outcomes
of these cases to understand how courts have
navigated the complexities of hypnosis in legal
contexts.
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN- 2693-0803)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
3
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
Synthesis of Best Practices
In addition to case law, the review synthesized best
practices from various forensic psychology and
legal organizations, such as the American
Psychological Association (APA) and the National
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL).
These guidelines were examined to identify
recommendations for practitioners utilizing
forensic hypnosis. Key themes explored included
the importance of informed consent, the need for
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN- 2693-0803)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
4
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
rigorous
training
and
qualifications
for
practitioners, and the protocols for documenting
hypnotic sessions to ensure transparency and
reliability.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical implications associated with the use of
forensic hypnosis were critically evaluated through
a review of ethical guidelines and literature. This
involved examining the risks of suggestibility, the
potential for memory distortion, and the
responsibilities of practitioners to minimize harm.
The review aimed to highlight the ethical dilemmas
faced by professionals in balancing the benefits of
memory retrieval against the risks of inducing false
memories or misleading testimony.
Integration of Findings
The findings from case law, best practices, and
ethical considerations were integrated to provide a
comprehensive overview of the current state of
forensic hypnosis in the judicial system. This
synthesis aimed to identify gaps in knowledge and
areas for future research, particularly concerning
the standardization of practices and the need for
legal education regarding forensic hypnosis among
judges and attorneys. By collating insights from
diverse sources, this methodology sought to
enhance the understanding of how forensic
hypnosis can be responsibly utilized within the
courts, ultimately contributing to improved legal
outcomes and greater public trust in the judicial
process.
RESULTS
The review of judicial perspectives on forensic
hypnosis revealed significant findings regarding its
application in the legal system, the variability in
case law, and the best practices for ensuring ethical
and effective use. Key results include:
Variability in Admissibility: The analysis of
landmark cases illustrated a wide range of judicial
interpretations regarding the admissibility of
hypnotically retrieved testimony. Some courts,
such as those in People v. Hughes, have set
stringent criteria for admission, requiring
corroborative evidence to support the reliability of
hypnotically enhanced memories. In contrast,
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN- 2693-0803)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
5
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
other jurisdictions have been more permissive,
allowing such testimonies under specified
conditions, reflecting a lack of consensus in the
legal community.
Impact of Judicial Decisions: The examination of
pivotal cases revealed how judicial decisions have
influenced the standards for forensic hypnosis. For
instance, in State v. Hurd, the court established a
precedent by emphasizing the need for rigorous
safeguards during the hypnosis process to mitigate
risks associated with suggestibility. Such rulings
have shaped subsequent cases and created a
framework for evaluating the admissibility of
hypnotically retrieved evidence.
Best Practices: The synthesis of best practices from
professional organizations underscored the
importance of a structured approach to forensic
hypnosis. Recommendations included obtaining
informed consent from subjects, employing trained
professionals for hypnosis sessions, and
maintaining meticulous documentation of the
process
to
enhance
transparency
and
accountability. The incorporation of these
practices can help mitigate the potential for ethical
violations and improve the reliability of retrieved
memories.
Ethical Concerns: The review highlighted
significant ethical concerns associated with the use
of forensic hypnosis. Issues related to
suggestibility, the potential for creating false
memories, and the necessity of prioritizing the
well-being of subjects were central to the
discussion. Practitioners must navigate these
challenges to uphold ethical standards and protect
the integrity of the judicial process.
DISCUSSION
The findings of this review illustrate the
complexities and challenges associated with the
use of forensic hypnosis in legal contexts. The
variability in judicial perspectives on admissibility
reflects the ongoing debate about the reliability of
hypnotically retrieved testimony and underscores
the need for a standardized approach. Given the
potential for memory distortion and suggestibility,
it is crucial for legal professionals to be educated
about the limitations and risks of forensic hypnosis.
The lack of consensus across jurisdictions
highlights the necessity for further research to
establish clear guidelines and protocols for the use
of forensic hypnosis. Collaborative efforts among
legal scholars, psychologists, and practitioners
could foster the development of evidence-based
practices that enhance the credibility and
effectiveness of hypnosis in legal settings.
Furthermore, the ethical implications discussed
emphasize the importance of maintaining high
standards of practice. As forensic hypnosis
continues to evolve, ongoing training and
education for practitioners will be essential to
ensure that they are equipped to handle the
complexities of memory retrieval while adhering to
ethical guidelines.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, forensic hypnosis presents both
opportunities and challenges within the judicial
system. This review has illuminated the diverse
judicial perspectives on the admissibility of
hypnotically retrieved testimony, highlighting the
need for a balanced approach that considers both
the potential benefits and risks involved. While
forensic hypnosis can aid in recovering valuable
information, its application must be approached
with caution and rigor.
To promote the responsible use of forensic
hypnosis, legal professionals and practitioners
should prioritize best practices and adhere to
ethical standards. Ongoing education and research
will be vital in establishing a more uniform
framework for the use of hypnosis in legal contexts,
ultimately enhancing the integrity of the judicial
process. As the intersection of psychology and law
continues to evolve, a commitment to evidence-
based practices will be essential in fostering public
trust and ensuring justice is served.
REFERENCE
1.
American Medical Association, Council on
Scientific Affairs, (1985). Scientific Status of
Refreshing Recollections by the Use of
Hypnosis. Chicago, IL: American Medical
Association
2.
Dywan, J.& K. Bowers (1983). The use of
hypnosis to enhance re
call.” Science. Vol. 222,
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN- 2693-0803)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
6
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
Pp. 184-185.
3.
Geiselman, R.E., & H. Machlovitz (1987).
Hypnosis memory recall: Implications for
forensic use. American Journal of Forensic
Psychology. Vol. 5, Pp. 37-47.
4.
Goldenson, Robert M. (1984). Longman
dictionary of psychology and psychiatry. New
York, NY: Longman Publishing.
5.
Nash, M.R. (1994). Memory distortion and
sexual trauma: The problem with false
negatives and false positives.The International
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis.
Vol. 42, Pp. 346-362.
6.
Smith, M.C. (1983). Hypnotic memory
enhancement
of witnesses: Does it work?”
Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 94, Pp. 387-407.
7.
Steblay, N.M. & R.K. Bothwell (1994). Evidence
for hypnotically refreshed testimony .Law and
Human Behavior. Vol. 18, Pp. 635-651.
8.
Wagstaff, G.F. & K. Mercer (1993). Does
hypnosis facilitate memory for deep processed
stimuli? Contemporary Hypnosis. Vol. 10, Pp.
59-66.
9.
Wilson, L., Greene, E., & E.F. Loftus (1986).
Beliefs about forensic hypnosis. International
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis.
Vol. 34, Pp. 110-121.
