People's voice. [volume] (Wellington, Sumner County, Kansas) 1890-1917, 1895-01-17
hypnotism In Crime.

'ANh 'S'ANJ " bhO plOco III
general, and the jury has been the
target for the photographers jokes and
the jeSts of the professional humOr-
list. DR.. Peterson treats the matter
with great seriousness and at consid-
cradle length. He assumes at the
outset that the defense was perfectly
valid and that the jury was justified
by logic, if not by the facts, in
acQuitting. He classes the murder as
SOmnambulism and asserts that.
while the actual murderer was un-
dOubtedly SuggeStible, the influence
Of the stronger will developed the
hypnotic germ that was ia him. The
process was a slow one. The first
step of the hypnOtizer was to infame
the mind of the subject against the
intended victim in a natural way.
and then by degrees get him so firmly
under his influence as to ripen indig-
nation and anger into crime.
For his own part, DR.. Petersen does
not question for moment the propO-
sitiOn that a morally sound person in
the hypnotic state can be induced to
commit a crime. He quotes the
case Of Eyraud and BOmpard, and
cites the opinion of the learned Judge
in that case as neither borne out by
circumstances nor indicated by the
calm and unprejudiced opinion Of the
present day. The judge had decided
against the BOmpard woman, not be-
cause there was not a possibility of
her innocence, but because by accept
ing a plea of responsibility it
might plunge society into anarch-
ism of UNPUBLISHED crimes" And he
calls attention to the significant fact
that few years later the opinion of
the Judge was overthrow by a doc
tor at the Salpetriere, who hypnotic
ed an innocent youpg man and COM
PEELED him to ''plunge dagger 10 the
sawduSt of manikin." DR.. Peter
sen further suggests, in answer to the
assertion that a subject does not lose
his moral liberty and can discuss the
gravity of suggested act, that ''if a
subject could be made to do only what
was agreeable to him such fact
would refute the existence of pSy-
Geological autOmatism, which is
characteristic of the hypnotic state"
The line of argument adopted by
DR.. Petersen, while detailed at great
er length, is practically that set forth
in the Star some weeks ago. The
main difference is that the expert
seeks merely to defend the defense of
complete autOmatism without moral
responsibility, and does not discuss
the numerous complications that such
plea will cause. 1t is doubtless true
that if he were approached on this
point he would confess that many
pretenders will arise and that judges
and jurieS must be on their guard
against the cold blOOded murderers
who will seek to hide behind this new
excuse for revolving crime. In few
words, his argument seems to be that
while in some cases, perhaps in that
of the Kansas man for one. and
Gabrielle Bompard for another hyp-
motto influence is successfully employ
ed, it is altogether a rare exception
rather than rule. This is the idea
of all experts in hypnOtism. They
merely wish to establish 10 the pOpu-
lar mind the terrible effects of hyp-
nOtism, and it seems evident that
their arguments are listened with a
respect that was withheld 4 few years
ago. 1t is not likely that many pre-
tenders will be enabled to evade JUS
tice on this plea, and it is quite as
unlikely that the instigating muir
derer will find it to his advantage to
secure the cooperation or an irrespOn-
Sible tool. Altogether the question
remains an interesting one for further
discussion, with DR.. Petersen's argu-
ment as a strong presentation of the
scientific side of the case.-Kansas
Clty Star.
We do not know how well the facts
were established in the two other
cases to which this eminent scientist
refers as basis for his hypnotic the.
cries. But the facts in the Kansas
case to which he refers, the case OF
The State VS.. Thomas Mcdonald, re
Gently tried in this county, do not
warrant any of his conclusions. AND
ali for one very simple reason. Tht
idea Of hypnOtism was never thought
of, mentioned. nor referred to by
court, counsel, witness, defendant OIL
juror during the progress of the trial
1t is true that the defendant Nc
Donald admitted the killing and wa.
acquitted. 1t is true that before hi
was tried Anderson Gray had beer
tried and found guilty of murder il
the first degree for urging, aiding ant