Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 06.pdf/167

 144

distinction between employing a prisoner as his own detective and converting him into his own accuser and judge must in practice be somewhat difficult to draw and to preserve. But the proposed hypnotization of De Jong derives its chief interest and im portance from the light that it casts upon the advanced stage of medico-legal opinion abroad as to the possibilities of hypnotic science. In England we are still maintain ing an attitude of philosophic doubt in regard to the phenomena of hypnotism; the new science, even as purified by Braid, has not yet succeeded in ridding itself of the discredit with which the schools and the market-place alike view the speculations of Mesmer; the great organization of the medical profession is not prepared to go much farther than the memorable dogma delivered to the faithful in 1889: "the phenomena of hypnotism are worthy of observation"; while the majority of lawyers have not considered the question as a legal problem of the near future at all. On the other hand, the wild living intellects of our continental brethren have busied themselves for years in the discussion of hypnotic facts. They have canvassed the claims of the new science in all their varied relations and bearings — social, medical, and legal — and have evolved a system of doctrines and propositions which to all appearances they are now about to reduce to practice. A critical analysis of some of the results of their activity may not at the present mo ment be inopportune. I. The first medico-legal inquiry which occurs to a student of hypnotism is the still vexed question, whether hypnotic subjects will accept criminal suggestions. On this point continental opinion has been and still is acutely divided. Liegois, whose excel lent work on suggestion may be heartily commended to English readers, believes that hypnotic subjects may be induced to commit criminal offences. Gilles de la Tourette, Benedict, Janet, and Dr. Kings

bury, of Blackpool, the ablest exponent of hypnotism in Britain, take, with more or less confidence, an opposite view. There is obviously much to be said on both sides of the question. It is true that a sub-current of consciousness often seems to underlie the hypnotic sleep, and that there is a difference between a criminal suggestion made in a doctor's consulting room and a similar sug gestion made in real life, of malice afore thought. Moreover, the theatrical exhibi tions which imparted so ludicrous an element to the Eyraud and Gompard trial in Paris a few years ago are not fitted to impress the English legal mind in favor of the conclu sions which they were intended to establish. But some weight must undoubtedly be allowed to the experiments made by Liegois and other investigators in all seriousness and in the presence of officers of the law; and it seems difficult a priori to deny that certain subjects might, after, or even with out, hypnotic training, be made to accept the suggestion of criminal acts. If the possibility of such a state of things be admitted, a further legal question at once arises as to the criminal responsibility of hyp notic subjects. How would the law deal with a person who voluntarily submitted himself to hypnotic treatment knowing that a criminal suggestion was to be made to him, and intending beforehand to accept it? Can persons under the influence of sugges tions ever be held responsible to the criminal law? The answers to these questions are at present conflicting, and indeed it seems im possible to dispose of them finally till the degree of volition that may exist in the hypnotic sleep has been more accurately determined. 2. Second in importance to the subject with which we have been dealing comes the inquiry, whether criminal offences can be perpetrated upon hypnotic subjects without their knowing it? In spite of Taylor's criticism — made, it should be observed, in another connection — Non omnes dormiunt