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

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

Arafin

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