Memory Recall Through Hypnosis Has Controversial But Effective Applications in the Criminal Justice System

Hypnosis is a trance state wherein the subject gains increased susceptibility to suggestion. While prevalent in popular culture, it is a widely misunderstood process. In popular media, hypnosis is portrayed inaccurately as mind control  gained through putting the subject to sleep.  An example of this is in the 2001 comedy film, Zoolander, in which Derek Zoolander is hypnotized to murder the Prime Minister of Malaysia. While hypnosis does increase the subject's susceptibility to suggestion, he or she will not do anything unwillingly. In addition to suggestion, hypnosis has also been used to recall memories that the subject had believed to be forgotten.

Hypnosis allows access into the subconscious mind.

Hypnosis, while effective in memory recall, is also prone to false memories.

While many individuals have successfully recalled memories they thought had been forgotten, false memories are also common. Because of this, in 1984 the American Medical Association stated that hypnosis does not produce reliable recall. Even though the process of  hypnosis can help a person remember additional details, there is no way of determining what is and is not accurate. Tom Mauriello, Forensics Professor at University of Maryland and certified hypnotist, was able to hypnotize students in in his criminal justice class and have them remember the names of their first grade teachers, which they had forgotten before hypnosis. He does admit that occasionally participants recall false information. Mauriello is certified as a hypnotist by the International Investigative Hypnosis Institute. In the video below, Mauriello describes how memories retrieved through hypnosis can be more accurate.

He emphasizes the fact that hypnosis allows the subject to recall events without emotional distortion, which can be very helpful for victims and witnesses of traumatic experiences. Hypnosis, however, remains controversial as a means for memory recall. A study by the University of Pennsylvania found that hypnosis did not produce a greater increase in accurate memory recall as compared with attempts of recall with subjects that had not undergone hypnosis. 

There are no clear guidelines for hypnotically obtained testimony and evidence in court.

Because of its controversial nature, the admissibility of testimony and evidence retrieved through hypnosis currently varies by jurisdiction. There is no universal decision on whether or not hypnosis is acceptable method for uncovering the truth. In jurisdictions where it is allowed but questioned, there are many criteria for reliability that the process must meet. These courts will often use procedural safeguards to ensure reliability and credibility of the testimony. In three states, it is completely inadmissible, and in four states it is completely admissible. The rest of the states have varying degrees of regulations, which shows just how divided an issue it is. In 1987 the United States Supreme Court ruled that states may not absolutely prohibit defendants from testifying about details obtained from hypnotic memory call. The Court recognizes that the recall may be inaccurate, but states that prohibiting it infringes on the constitutional rights of the defendant. They, however, issued no ruling on hypnotically obtained testimony from witnesses. This ruling conflicted with some states' ban on testimony from hypnosis that were already in place. 

Hypnosis has been and can continue to be a productive aid in criminal investigations.

While it may not admissible in court in certain jurisdictions, hypnosis can be helpful in investigations by hypnotizing both victims and witnesses. Hypnosis allows for the participant to recall traumatic events without emotional interference. Famous cases where hypnosis has been used are that of Ted Bundy, Sam Sheppard, and the Boston Strangler.Another example of successful application of hypnosis in the criminal justice system is the Chowchilla case of 1976 in which a bus driver was able to recall two digits of a license plate after being buried alive with twenty six school children. Using this information, the kidnappers were found and prosecuted. Mauriello believes that if done correctly, hypnosis should definitely be used in criminal investigations and court.

General Psychology lists three criteria for acceptable testimony from hypnosis in the courtroom;
1. Uses corroborating evidence.
2. Avoids leading questions.
3. Used only when needed.
These criteria are supported by Mauriello and a study of 42 eyewitnesses which found that inaccuracies in testimonies stemmed from leading questions. The study also found that hypnosis should be limited to eyewitnesses and used as a last resort. With these criteria, hypnosis can be an effective tool both in criminal investigations and in court.

Public misconceptions may cause hypnosis to be less effective in court.

Even with past success in criminal cases, there is still an issue that jury members may have misconceptions about the credibility of hypnosis based on the inaccurate portrayal in popular culture. Courts try to counteract this by using safeguards to increase credibility, but based on varying results from studies it may prove difficult to convince the average person of its reliability. If the jury cannot trust the method for obtaining testimony, they may disregard it or develop a bias against the witness or victim that testified. This could actually diminish the value of using hypnosis for memory recall. To illustrate this, a non-expert individual was asked his opinion on the whether or not hypnotically obtained testimony should be allowed in court.

listen to ‘Should Testimony Retrieved Through Hypnosis Be Allowed In The Courtroom?’ on Audioboo

Coworker Expresses His Thoughts on Hypnosis in the Courtroom

listen to ‘Hypnosis’ on Audioboo

Hypnosis and Its Memory Recall Have Questionable Applications in the Criminal Justice System

Hypnosis, while prevalent in popular culture, is a widely misunderstood process. Although portrayed as a sort of mind control through sleep, in actuality it is a trance state with an increased susceptibility to suggestion. It has also been used to recall memories that the subject had thought had been forgotten.

Hypnosis, while effective in memory recall, is also prone to false memories.

While many individuals have successfully recalled memories they thought had been forgotten, false memories are also common. Because of this, in 1984 the American Medical Association stated that hypnosis does not produce reliable recall. Even though the hypnosis can help a person remember additional details, there is no way of determining what is and is not accurate. Hypnosis expert, Tom Mauriello, was able to hypnotize students in in his criminal justice class and have them remember the names of their first grade teachers, which before hypnosis they had forgotten. He does admit that occasionally participants recall false information.

There are no clear guidelines for hypnotically obtained testimony and evidence in court. 

Currently, the admissibility of testimony and evidence retrieved through hypnosis varies by jurisdiction. There is no universal decision on whether or not hypnosis is acceptable method for uncovering the truth. In jurisdictions where it is allowed but questioned, there are many criteria for reliability that the process must meet. In three states, it is completely inadmissible, and in four states it is completely admissible. The rest of the states have varying degrees of regulations, which shows just how divided an issue it is.

Hypnosis has been an productive aid in criminal investigations.

While it may not admissible in court, most agree that hypnosis is helpful in investigations by hypnotizing both victims and witnesses. Hypnosis allows for the participant to recall traumatic events without emotional interference. Famous cases where hypnosis has been used are that of Ted Bundy, Sam Sheppard, and the Boston Strangler.

I Explain Why I am Researching Hypnosis and the Criminal Justice System

Roomates Discuss Their Thoughts On Ipads and Blended Learning

listen to ‘first response’ on Audioboo

listen to ‘second response’ on Audioboo

While the Digital Divide is Closing, the Participation Gap May Be Expanding Due to Mobile Problems

Guidry's report on the digital divide used data from 2007-2009, but technology is always becoming more advanced and more available, so his findings are not as relevant today. Now internet adoption rates have leveled off and African Americans and Latinos are just as likely to have mobile phones as whites.

Even Though the Digital Divide Has Decreased, The Participation Gap is Still Prevalent

Even though more people have access to mobile devices and the internet today, the participation gap as described by Guidy is still existent, due to varying degrees of comfort and expertise with mobile devices. The use of technology is greatly influenced by one's financial status, history, and culture. While Latinos and African Americans are just as likely to own a mobile device, they are more likely to rely on it for internet access and a larger variety of uses. This also true with college students, young adults, and those with low incomes. Those who do not have a personal computer with internet access tend to use social networks and other websites differently than those that do.

Mobile Problems Can Cause A Larger Participation Gap

A recent study has shown that the majority of mobile device users encounter issues such as dropped calls, spam texts, unwanted marketing calls, and slow internet speeds at least occasionally. A small percentage even have these problems several times a day. This affects the participation gap, because these problems can be very detrimental to the people as discussed earlier that rely on their mobile devices more than others. Someone who only has access to the internet on his/her mobile device and constantly deals with slow internet speed, is limited in his/her internet experience. Dropped and marketing calls can definitely affect one's experience with technology possibly causing frustration and confusion. Spam texts can easily mislead people and possibly make them have less trust in the service and the device. People who do not experience these problems become more adjusted to the devices and better at using them. This causes the participation gap to expand.

Mobile Problems Are Probably Not A Major Factor in the Digital Divide

While the digital divide is definitely not as large today, there are still people without access to the internet. This group mostly consists of elderly, non-English speaking, and disabled people. Also included are those with low income. These people will probably encounter the mobile problems less than those whole rely on the devices more. Hispanics and African Americans experience them at a higher rates due to there higher reliance, so naturally people who do not own cell phones or own cell phones with no internet access will experience the issues less often or even not at all. The people who do not use the internet claim that the reason they do not is that the internet is not relevant to them. Most have never used the internet before, and therefore will not be aware the mobile issues. Some of these people expressed no interest in ever using the technology so there are other factors in the decision than mobility issues. It does not seem that issues such as spam texts or slow internet speeds on mobile devices are as important in keeping people from adapting to technology as age, education, and income.

Citizen Journalism: Revealing Corruption in Police Forces

Journalism is not only a field for professional reporters and legitimate news organizations. Now, more than ever, the average person can contribute news to the public very easily. With the aid of social networks, one person not affiliated with any news organization can spread a story to the masses quite easily and quickly. This is the idea behind citizen journalism; no longer is a reliance on secondhand news needed, as actual events are witnessed and recorded by citizens and made available to the public.

Advent of Citizen Journalism
Citizen journalism is becoming increasingly prevalent with advances in technology and the increasing availability of smartphones that can record or take pictures and swiftly upload the media to the internet. Today 54.9% of American adults with cell phones have smartphones, and 88% of American adults own a mobile phone in general. That does not even include the vast amount of children that now have smartphones. This means that if a newsworthy event occurs, there is a very good possibility that it will be captured by personal media very quickly. Once recorded, the video or picture can be uploaded to Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, personal blogs, etc. almost immediately, and from there it can go viral and spread to millions of people before a news reporter has a change to even hear that it happened. While these social networks accelerate the process and the newer technology makes citizen journalism very easy, it is not a recent idea.


Effects of Citizen Journalism on the Police
While citizen journalism is not restricted to any type of news story, I believe the most apparent and effective use is in regards to police corruption and brutality. Police brutality caught on tape is an especially, for lack of a better word, popular example of citizen journalism. Before people always had cameras on their person, they probably felt powerless against the police if they were the subject of police brutality. Today though they have direct evidence that they can show the world, and even build support. While I believe that this is a good thing as it exposes police corruption and public awareness, it definitely has negative effects as well. The many videos spreading on Youtube, can lead to public distrust of police forces, because the videos are so popular and what people most associate with police rather than any good acts. This can cause a sense of hopelessness in a community, as they feel that they can not trust the people that are supposed to be protecting them.

Examples of Citizen Journalism and Brutality
As previously stated, citizen journalism is not a completely recent idea, especially in relation to the police. One of the major examples of police brutality being publicized by a citizen was back in 1991. Rodney King was beaten by the LAPD, and it was videotaped by a nearby resident, George Holliday. The effects of this incident are still being felt today as the trust and decency of the police are still held in question by many people. The clip can be seen above, and the anchor even states in the beginning that the story might never have broke if it was not for the man recording it on his own camcorder.  Another famous incident occurred during the Occupy Movement at the University of California-Davis where a 

policeman pepper sprayed peaceful protesting students unprovoked. In the picture to the right, it is shown that many bystanders are either filming or taking pictures of the event. As a result, the officer lost his job but was not charged with a crime. Yet another example was the University of Maryland Riot of 2010 after UMD beat Duke in basketball. Students flooded Route 1 in celebration and police tried to disband the riot, sometimes with excessive force. One incident was caught on tape by a student where the police officers start beating a person who is not harming them in any way. The officers are currently on trial for their actions.

Other Ways Citizen Journalism Affects Police

The filming of brutality is not the only way that citizen journalism has been used to reveal police corruption to the public. Very recently a young Harlem male was pulled over by the police and secretly recorded the conversation. The officers used racist language and had no legal reason to pull over and frisk the man. This incident has brought about investigation into the practices of the NYPD, and a deeper look at the relationship of the police and the community. NYPD officers actually came forward to describe how they are pressured into these actions. One said, "The civilian population, they’re being hunted by us...instead of being protected by us, they’re being hunted and we’re being hated.”

Is Citizen Journalism Good or Bad?

As seen through these examples, I believe that citizen journalism is very helpful in publicizing criminal acts caused by a supposed respectable authority. These incidents would probably not be reported to the public without the help of citizens documenting them. Even though they may cause distrust between citizens and the police, I believe that it is necessary in order for change to occur. With police forces being investigated and corrupt police officers being charged and/or fired, hopefully these incidents will stop happening and the relationship between citizens and the police will be repaired.