Summary timeline
18th–19th centuries: Early mesmerism and criminal allegations — mesmerism (animal magnetism) produced moral panic and sensational press stories about mind control, sexual misconduct, theft, and political plots. Mostly anecdotal and sensationalized; few reliable legal prosecutions.[1][2]
Late 19th–early 20th centuries: Forensic interest and courtroom use — hypnotically induced testimony and confessions appear in courts; skepticism grows as suggestibility and confabulation are recognized.[3][4]
1920s–1950s: Popular fears and press stories — newspapers report cases of hypnotic theft and “hypnotic suggestion” crimes; criminologists and psychologists increasingly question the plausibility of committing complex crimes under pure hypnotic command.[5][6]
1950s–1980s: Forensic psychiatry and legal limits — courts and psychiatric experts set strict evidentiary limits on hypnosis for memory recovery and criminal responsibility; legislation/regulations in some jurisdictions curtailed or prohibited hypnotically refreshed testimony.[7][8]
1990s–present: Empirical research and risk management — laboratory research shows hypnosis can increase suggestibility but cannot make people perform acts strongly against deeply held values; forensic practice focuses on protocols (e.g., pre‑hypnosis screening, recording) and treating “hypnotic crime” claims as requiring strong independent evidence.[9][10]
Detailed history and notable episodes
Mesmerism and early moral panics (late 18th–19th century)
Franz Anton Mesmer (d. 1815) developed “animal magnetism” (mesmerism) in the 1770s–1780s; his practice generated reports and rumors that subjects could be made to confess crimes, commit immoral acts, or be manipulated by malicious operators.[1]
Official investigations (e.g., the 1784 French Royal Commission including Benjamin Franklin) concluded the effects were from imagination/placebo rather than a physical magnetic fluid, but mesmerism persisted in popular culture and led to sensational press allegations linking mesmerists to theft, seduction, and political intrigue.[1][2]
Footnotes: [1] Crabtree, A. (1993). The Silent Therapists: Mesmerism and the Victorian Novel. In A. Crabtree, Mesmerism and the End of the Enlightenment in France (pp. 1–36). Oxford University Press. (Discusses the social panic and anecdotal criminal accusations surrounding mesmerism.) [2] Gauld, A. (1992). A History of Hypnotism. Cambridge University Press, ch. on Mesmer and early popular reaction. (Summarizes early allegations and the Royal Commission.)
Late 19th century: Hypnosis, crime fiction, and reported cases
The late 19th century saw an increase in fictional depictions (novels, theatre) of hypnotic crime (e.g., London fiction), amplifying public fear that hypnotists could coerce crime.[3]
Some reported incidents claimed robbery or immoral acts performed under hypnotic influence; historians generally treat many such reports as exaggeration or misinterpretation because reliable documentation is sparse.[3][4]
Footnotes: [3] Gauld, A. (1992). A History of Hypnotism. Cambridge University Press, chs. on Victorian mesmerism and cultural responses. [4] Crabtree, A. (1993). From Mesmer to Freud: Magnetic sleep and the roots of hypnosis. Yale University Press. (Analyzes cultural and press narratives about hypnotic crime.)
Early courtroom use: hypnotically obtained confessions and testimony (late 19th–early 20th centuries)
Courts admitted hypnotically refreshed testimony in some jurisdictions, and some defendants claimed they had been hypnotized into committing crimes or into confessing. Over time, courts recognized high risk of suggestion and unreliable memory from hypnosis.[5]
For example, U.S. and British cases during the early 20th century highlight contested admissibility; many courts later limited or excluded testimony if hypnosis had been used to refresh memory.[6]
Footnotes: [5] Clarke, N., & Cumbow, S. (2005). Hypnosis, memory, and the law. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23(5), 637–653. (Review of hypnotically refreshed testimony and legal responses.) [6] Bowers, W. F. (1977). The use of hypnosis in criminal investigations: A policy perspective. Law and Human Behavior, 1(1), 69–76. (Historical review of legal attitudes toward hypnotically obtained evidence.)
Mid-20th century: Sensational cases, myth persistence, and scientific skepticism
Popular press continued to report hypnotic crime stories (e.g., “hypnotic robberies”), often lacking solid evidence; criminologists and psychologists increasingly emphasized that hypnosis cannot create new behaviors unknown to the subject or reliably override core values.[7]
Research by Hilgard, Orne and others showed that compliance under hypnosis is more accurately predicted by social compliance and expectancy than by an ability to force criminal acts.[8]
Footnotes: [7] Orne, M. T. (1958). The Nature of Hypnosis: Artifact and Essence. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 56(3), 333–338. (Argues suggestion and role enactment rather than unique hypnotic power.) [8] Hilgard, E. R. (1965). Hypnosis in the Relief of Pain. University of Chicago Press. (Seminal experimental work demonstrating limits of hypnosis.)
High-profile claims and hoaxes
There have been notable high-profile claims or hoaxes where individuals alleged they had been hypnotized to commit crimes or where purported hypnotists were accused of criminal conduct. Many specific cases later proved to be fabrications, misattributions, or lacked corroboration.[9]
Example: various press accounts in the 1920s–1940s alleging hypnotic pickpockets or “hypnotic switching” schemes, but systematic evidence is weak.[5][9]
Footnotes: [9] Barber, T. X., & Spanos, N. P. (1975). Hypnosis, deception, and fraud. In A. Tasman & P. S. American Psychiatric Association. (Review of hoaxes and deceptive claims associated with hypnosis.)
Legal and forensic policy responses (mid‑late 20th century)
Many jurisdictions created rules limiting use of hypnosis in criminal investigations, particularly regarding memory recovery for witnesses and suspects. Courts often exclude hypnotically refreshed testimony unless rigorously documented and corroborated.[10]
Notable guidelines include rulings and statutory limits in many U.S. states and Canada to prevent unreliable hypnotic testimony influencing verdicts.[11]
Footnotes: [10] U.S. Supreme Court and federal case law references: Courts have not accepted hypnosis as per se coercive in every context but require safeguards; see People v. Shirley (Calif. 1975) and state statutory restrictions. For a review, see Clarke & Milne (2001). (Case law reviews and policy.) [11] British Psychological Society & American Psychological Association practice guidelines: See APA (1996) report on hypnosis and memory; BPS guidelines on expert testimony. (Provides standards for forensic hypnosis practice.)
Modern empirical evidence and consensus (1990s–present)
Laboratory and clinical research shows:
Hypnosis can increase suggestibility and vividness of recollection but also increases risk of confabulation and false memories when used for memory recovery.[12][13]
Hypnosis does not create new personality or override core moral/behavioral restraints for most people; compliance under hypnosis reflects suggestibility, social compliance, and contextual factors.[12][14]
Thus, criminal responsibility claims based solely on hypnosis are treated skeptically without independent corroborating evidence.[12][13]
Footnotes: [12] Lynn, S. J., & Kirsch, I. (2006). Essentials of Clinical Hypnosis: An Evidence-Based Approach. American Psychological Association. (Summarizes empirical findings on suggestibility and ethical/forensic issues.) [13] Kihlstrom, J. F. (2000). Hypnosis and memory: Implications for the law. In D. L. Schacter (Ed.), Memory Distortion: How Minds, Brains, and Societies Reconstruct the Past. (Comprehensive review of hypnosis and memory reliability.) [14] Heap, M. (2011). Hypnosis in the courtroom: A review and practical recommendations. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 59(1), 49–69. (Discusses limits of hypnotic control and courtroom recommendations.)
Contemporary notable forensic controversies
“Recovered memory” controversies (1980s–1990s) implicated therapeutic hypnosis among other suggestive techniques in producing false allegations, including in some criminal prosecutions. These events led to widespread reappraisal of hypnosis in clinical and legal settings.[15]
Ongoing international practice emphasizes strict protocols: informed consent, pre‑hypnosis screening (for suggestibility and vulnerability), videotaping sessions, independent corroboration before taking legal action.[16]
Footnotes: [15] Loftus, E. F. (1993). The reality of repressed memories. American Psychologist, 48(5), 518–537. (Seminal critique of recovered memory cases and role of suggestion.) [16] American Psychological Association (1996). Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hypnotic Evidence. (Guidelines addressing forensic use of hypnosis and testimony.)
Assessment of whether hypnosis has been used to commit crimes
Strong historical evidence that hypnotic “crimes” were widely alleged in the popular press and fiction; documented, reliably verified cases of hypnosis directly causing complex criminal acts are scarce or absent when evaluated critically.[3][5][9]
Empirical psychology indicates hypnotic suggestion can influence behavior, but there are strong limits: people are unlikely to perform actions strongly violating deeply held morals or self‑preservation solely because of hypnosis.[8][12][14]
Legal systems therefore require corroboration and often reject hypnosis‑only claims about criminal acts or testimony refreshed by hypnosis without strict safeguards.[10][11][16]
Key primary and secondary sources (for further reading)
Gauld, A. (1992). A History of Hypnotism. Cambridge University Press.
Crabtree, A. (1993). From Mesmer to Freud: Magnetic sleep and the roots of hypnosis. Yale University Press.
Orne, M. T. (1958). The Nature of Hypnosis: Artifact and Essence. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology.
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2000). Hypnosis and memory: Implications for the law. In Memory Distortion.
Lynn, S. J., & Kirsch, I. (2006). Essentials of Clinical Hypnosis. APA.
Loftus, E. F. (1993). The reality of repressed memories. American Psychologist.