NCJ Number
95989
Journal
Criminal Law Review Dated: (March 1983) Pages: 152-157
Date Published
1983
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This paper concludes there is no scientific proof that evidence obtained under hypnosis is necessarily more accurate than evidence obtained by other means.
Abstract
Much experimental literature indicates that hypnotic performance fails to surpass suitably motivated 'waking' performance. Trained hypnotists are unable to distinguish uninstructed simulators from 'hypnotized' individuals on a variety of tasks, including antisocial behaviors. A growing body of opinion suggests that hypnotic phenomena may be more usefully explained by concepts of role enactment, imagination, and relaxation, rather than the concept of a special mental state or trance. Recent experimental evidence runs counter to the view that hypnosis can increase memory to a degree greater than than achievable in a motivated waking situation. Possibly a relaxing, empathic hypnotist using imagery facilitation techniques may be able to extract details from an unwilling or distressed witness, but it is doubtful whether hypnotic induction adds to the accuracy of the testimony. In sum, no scientific support exists for the view that evidence obtained under hypnosis is more truthful or necessarily more accurate than evidence obtained by procedures which do not use hypnotic induction. Consequently, there is no need to propose changes in the law to accommodate such opinion. A total of 30 footnotes are provided.