HomeAccording to the Telegraph.co.uk, police in the UK are being “encouraged” to participate in a hypnosis course that will teach, among other things, an introduction to electroencephalograms (EEGs).
EEG is the recording of electrical activity in the brain gathered by placing sensors on the scalp which monitor ‘neuron activity’ – which cops believe can help ‘encourage’ suspects and witnesses to tell the truth.
How can this be legal? Is this different than a lie detector test?
Apparently proponents feel this is the next “logical step” when standard methods of interrogation have failed.
“Putting people in a receptive brainwave state makes it likelier that the truth would come out.
“Forensic hypnosis is a scientific approach as helmets monitor brain activity and anyone who is lying would have wide-awake brainwave patterns.
“Forensic hypnosis does not prove guilt but it can give new lines of enquiry when traditional methods have failed.
How can information garnered in this way be credible or permissible for presentation to the court? If someone is in a hypnotized state, they are by definition easily led. Consider all the reports of inaccurate and completely fabricated “recovered memories”. Is there any way to prove the results gathered via hypnotic interrogation are factual?
When interviewing suspected child abuse victims, we were required to be extraordinarily careful not to ask any leading questions whatsoever as doing so could result in the children being guided to provide inaccurate information. Wouldn’t this be the same sort of case?
Perhaps the trial laws in the UK are vastly different from the US. I can’t see use of this technique or information garnered from it ever standing up in a US court.
Your thoughts?
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Lady Julia,
I don’t see how it is much different than a lie detector test. They could make it voluntary like a lie detector test.
Could you hypnotize someone in one of these cases who didn’t want to be hypnotized?
I think it is not that different than forensic hypnosis. I don’t know how the law treats evidence gained that way. Perhaps it is tool that you could use to get facts, but not used to convict. Perhaps in looking for victims. Say someone buried underground.
There would have to be controls and protocols established to guard against abuse. Police have gotten very good at breaking people and getting them to confess. Even innocent people. I suppose hypnosis could make those tactics even stronger.
The other thing that scares me though is setting a precedent. If they allow this, how long until drugs are allowed? It could escalate.
Interesting thread.
Mike
February 4th, 2010 at 12:58 am
This has been tried in the US and failed. As soon as evidence gathered from a hypnotized witness was challenged on the grounds of leading the witness and false memories the practice stopped. I imagine the same thing will happen in the UK and anywhere else that attempts this. The information recalled under hypnosis *may* be accurate, but then again it may not be. It will only take the proof of one wrongly convicted person to end hypnosis testimony. Now, as far as hypnosis used for investigation of crimes, as long as the evidence gathered from hypnosis clues is later validated by non-hypnotic means, that is a different matter entirely.
Arafin
February 4th, 2010 at 8:23 am
Arafin,
I am thinking it would be useful as an aid. Say like in a kidnapping case where time is of the essence. Perhaps used as a way to sift out false leads.
Do you think it would be useful. What are your thoughts?
Mike
February 4th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
I remember reading about a robbery in which it was initially thought there were no witnesses. Then someone who was within sight of the crime, (but did not remember seeing it), was hypnotized and recalled a license plate number. The thieves were thus found and convicted on hard physical evidence. Hypnosis was only used to gain a lead in the investigation. I think this type of thing is fine.
Arafin
February 6th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Lady Julia
Hailing from the UK, I wouldn’t take this story too seriously, and I agree with your comments and the others here. Our judicial system is just as cautious as the US.
Start by looking at this http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/hypnosis/
A story like this appears in the press simply because the press will always aim to sensationalise even the most trivial of stories, to sell newspapers.
Also, so far, I have not seen any other coverage of this in the press.
If any such methods were being seriously proposed to be applied regularly in an interview , it would attract far more attention than a small article, and be subject to considerably more scruitiny, including, no doubt, a press-led outcry.
In terms of applying this to a suspect, or unwilling witness, the human rights act (yes we have one) implications of forcing any form of hypnosis would probably rule it out instantly. Further, we have the “Police and Criminal Evidence Act”, and Code C says “No interviewer may try to obtain answers or elicit a statement by the use of oppression”. This technique would certainly be oppression. There are probably some grey areas around police interrogation techniques, but any whiff of using hypnosis-based techniques to force a confession or evidence would probably fatally prejudice the investigation.
In terms of applying hypnosis this to a willing witnesses, to aid recollection, I can see some relevance in relation to the investigation process, such as the suggested aid to the recollection of simple concrete facts to provide leads; but as others have noted, and as was noted in the article itself, any subjective or uncorroborated hypnosis-derived evidence put before a judge would be highly unlikely to be accepted by a judge at all. or would be treated enormously cautiously by a judge and would require stringent procedures around the hypnosis session.
Thank you for sharing more of your mp3’s recently, by the way.
Regards
Julian