New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-09-20
LEGAL ASPECTS or HYPNOTISM
DIR WILLIAM LEE HOWARD DEFENDS HIS METH
DDS or INVESTIGATION. AND ASSERTS TIE

ODS OF lNNESTlbAIlON, AND AhsEhlS HE
NEED OF a CHANGE IN THE LAW
To tho Editor OF The Tribune.
Sir My attention has been called TO a communi-
cation In your issue OF the 18th inst. attempting 10
crticlse my methods OF psychological Investigations
Mr.. RUSSELL the critic, has my highest respect, and.
| judging from his remarks we both agree on the
| same subject, but look at the matter from dif-
ferent point OF view. I did not go TO the Medico-
| Legal Congress 10 discuss hypnotsm. my address
J being on a different subject but while there gave
some reasons and facts that call for the regulation
Of hypnotsm by legal action. How many physi-
clans five years ago could the stand and state
that in certain cases crime could be committed by
| hypnotic control? Scarcely one. ] determined to
| settle the matter We must have facts to-day: the
period has passed for theories / have for ten years
carefully investigated the subject OF hypnotism In
| a scientific manner, and have arrived Mt conclu-
! sions which enable to handle the facts so as
to bring those who pracae 1t for criminal. Immoral
and selfish purposes under the jurisdiction OF the
law as well as to prove that for the poor unfort-
unates who are suffering from morphinomania. dip
| somania sexual perversion and immoral habits we
have ut least a remedy which In my practice has
! been fairly successful.
| I have strongly advocated the legal suppression
| of the travelling and ignorant mesmerizer. The
trni OF hysteria that left the young women
! in the towns visited by these persons can only be
| understood by one who has followed the course OF
| these crude exhibitors All public demonstrations
| OF hypnOtisrn should be suppressed "! "th "N'IV"'
md the courts should take cognIzance Of citizens
| being subjugated by any unqualified experimen,er,
! ne II does OF the unlawful practice OF drug pre-
| scrib,ng or surgical operations by unqualified ana
| unegallzed persons. IT was TO enable me 10 take
| a decided stand In this matter that nave expert
| pented so far with the various phases OF hypno-
| t,srn | am satisfied with my facts II has been
done with that scientific zeal and desire for truth
! that accompany all Investigations. IL Mr.. russell
| thinks that should have ceased at the point OF
| finding out whether crime could be committed ny
| hypnotic suggestion or not. beg 10 dH'r win
| him BY doing as have hoped to prevent fur-
Their crime from being committed through this
agency as well az 20 put stop TO those numerous
| ana silly pleas that nro now brought Forward IN
our courts OF hypnotic influence. believe ihat
only smnll percentage OF subjects can be mace 10
| commit crime. but we must TAKE coshH""oe VI
| that small number
| For a full explanation Of this subject refer Mr..
| Russell to my article In "The New-York Medical
| Journal" March 9. 1895 Others In numerous dhiy
| journals throughout the country as wei as MI
Russell In The Tribune ask about the legal respon-
sibility OF the hypnotizcr and the hypnotized with
vo,r kind permission will answer all through The
! Tribune.
A TWOFOLD RESPONSIBILITY.
| In discussing the question from the point OF view
| Of criminal law are confronted by two great
| questons FIRST the responsibility of the hypnotizer
and second the responsibility of the hypnotized
| To the nrSt question tnc answer 10 A'N
hypnotzer occupies position akin to that OF an ac
cess.ory before the fact who. under the common law
Of England is equally guilty with, and IL punished
as a principal but in the case OF crime COM
mtted by one under hypnotic suggestion. the quit
of the hypnotizer Is increased In the case OF prn-
cipal and accessory there two Wills acting In
unison but In the other the will OF the hypnotizer
stands alone the guilt. and II the crime was muir
der his position is precisely that OF one who lets
loose a wild animal upon his victim. knowing that
| the nature OF the animal is such that he Will surely
kill
| From what have said the first question 1t fol-
| lows as a corollary the proposition that the sec
| ond question is answered by saying that the re-
| sponsibty OF the hypnotized is no greater than
| that of one who is compos mentis; but this
broad generalization requires to be somewhat quail
Ned, and in this connection desire TO note my as
ss an of rem the NeW of 9 rdns THAT who
commits crime by post-hypnotic suggestion suggestion Is
| punishable because he might have ioreseen the
| possibility of such suggestion"
This language is. from !esai point %, Of view OBJ
construction but with certal1 qua INCA lions 1t can
think BE ary s the 1hr aS s
and was a man Of criminal HABITS and inelinations
| fuence. and get, while in full possession OF his Will
| he placed himself In such position as TO be With
opinion that a certain degree Of legal responsibility
attaches to him for any crime he may commit.
motto suggestion. though to what extent ne should
be punished r am not pa e to bpt his posi-
to that Of an engineer By whose carelessness pas
being the same in either case II, Of course the one
hypnotized has caused the criminal act to be sug
gested to him. the guilt OF both parties would be
| equal
THE MOST DIFFICULT PROBLEM
| Now, having fixed the status of the hypnctizer
| and hypnotized before the criminal law to their
respective responsibilities. we come what re-
| gard as the most difficult problem 10 solve: How
| is It be demonstrated that given crime was
| oil h. pris Ih in eto Of hun
| nosis? Such claims frequently being
| brought before courts. Such a defence may
| rightly be interposed. and while evidence might
properly be introduced in a homicidal case to show
| that the prisoner had no motive to kill the de-
| ceased but that A had such a motive. and that A
| possessed the hypnotic power, and that the pris-
! oner was subject 10 hypnotic influence and, while
| such evidence might raise in the minds Of the Jury
such reasonable doubt that they would be forced
| versed and we A placed at the bar. the prose-
cution is beset with such difficulties under the
| rules of evidence that do not consider It would
be competent for to prove the responsibility n OF
| power over at other times, any more than 1t
would be competent for It to prove the gull! Of a
prisoner BY showing That t he had been v guilty Of
always inadmissibe except IN re6utai where the
show the previous good character OF the accused.
While such evidence would undoubtedly tend to
legally inadmissibe The law deals. particularly
in its criminal jurisdiction, with facts, not proba-
bilities and the evidence iiust nc eoneu ~ snow
| ing that in committing the crime the one striking
| the fatal blow acting under either hypnotic
or post-hypnot ic suggestion. and that the prisoner
| was the actual hypnotzer and ergo, responsible.
| Another point which occurs TO me is the difficulty
| which might well arise from the trouble In getting
| the person hypnotzed to testify In the presence
of the prisoner. Might he not, by the exercise OF
his power over the witness prevent him from testi-
! flying or render his testimony worthless? Yet II
| would not be possible 10 remove the prisoner ana
then examine the Witness for BY the inexorab!e
| rule Of common law. every man Is entitled to be
| confronted by the witness against him. and no
| trial can 20 on in the absence Of the prisoner so
that II the prisoner escapes during the trial OF the
| cause the trial must stop the common law Knowing
| nothing OF any such proceeding as a trial In con-
| tumatio. a., . .
1t is evident that some radical changes must be