CHAPTER VII.

Criminal Suggestion.—Laboratory Crimes.—Dr. Cocke’s Experiments Showing
Criminal Suggestion Is not Possible.—Dr. William James’ Theory.—A Bad
Man Cannot Be Made Good, Why Expect to Make a Good Man Bad?


One of the most interesting phases of hypnotism is that of
post-hypnotic suggestion, to which reference has already been made. It
is true that a suggestion made during the hypnotic condition as to what
a person will do after coming out of the hypnotic sleep may be carried
out. A certain professional hypnotizer claims that once he has
hypnotized a person he can keep that person forever after under his
influence by means of post-hypnotic suggestion. He says to him while in
the hypnotic sleep: “Whenever I look at you, or point at you, you will
fall asleep. No one can hypnotize you but me. Whenever I try to
hypnotize you, you will fall asleep.” He says further: “Suggest to a
subject while he is sound asleep that in eight weeks he will mail you a
letter with a blank piece of note paper inside, and during the
intervening period you may yourself forget the occurrence, but in
exactly eight weeks he will carry out the suggestion. Suggestions of
this nature are always carried out, especially when the suggestion is
to take effect on some certain day or date named. Suggest to a subject
that in ninety days from a given date he will come to your house with
his coat on inside out, and he will most certainly do so.”

The same writer also definitely claims that he can hypnotize people
against their wills. If this were true, what a terrible power would a
shrewd, evil-minded criminal have to compel the execution of any of his
plans! We hope to show that it is not true; but we must admit that many
scientific men have tried experiments which they believe demonstrate
beyond a doubt that criminal use can be and is made of hypnotic
influence. If it were possible to make a person follow out any line of
conduct while actually under hypnotic influence it would be bad enough;
but the use of posthypnotic suggestion opens a yet more far-reaching
and dangerous avenue.

Among the most definite claims of the evil deeds that may be compelled
during hypnotic sleep is that of Dr. Luys, whom we have already seen as
being himself deceived by professional hypnotic subjects. Says he: “You
cannot only oblige this defenseless being, who is incapable of opposing
the slightest resistance, to give from hand to hand anything you may
choose, but you can also make him sign a promise, draw up a bill of
exchange, or any other kind of agreement. You may make him write an
holographic will (which according to French law would be valid), which
he will hand over to you, and of which he will never know the
existence. He is ready to fulfill the minutest legal formalities, and
will do so with a calm, serene and natural manner calculated to deceive
the most expert law officers. These somnambulists will not hesitate
either, you may be sure, to make a denunciation, or to bear false
witness; they are, I repeat, the passive instruments of your will. For
instance, take E. She will at my bidding write out and sign a donation
of forty pounds in my favor. In a criminal point of view the subject
under certain suggestions will make false denunciations, accuse this or
that person, and maintain with the greatest assurance that he has
assisted at an imaginary crime. I will recall to your mind those scenes
of fictitious assassination, which have exhibited before you. I was
careful to place in the subject’s hands a piece of paper instead of a
dagger or a revolver; but it is evident, that if they had held
veritable murderous instruments, the scene might have had a tragic
ending.”

Many experiments along this line have been tried, such as suggesting
the theft of a watch or a spoon, which afterward was actually carried
out.

It may be said at once that “these laboratory crimes” are in most cases
successful: A person who has nothing will give away any amount if told
to do so; but quite different is the case of a wealthy merchant who
really has money to sign away.

Dr. Cocke describes one or two experiments of his own which have an
important bearing on the question of criminal suggestion. Says he: “A
girl who was hypnotized deeply was given a glass of water and was told
that it was a lighted lamp. A broomstick was placed across the room and
she was told that it was a man who intended to injure her. I suggested
to her that she throw the glass of water (she supposing it was a
lighted lamp) at the broomstick, her enemy, and she immediately threw
it with much violence. Then a man was placed across the room, and she
was given instead of a glass of water a lighted lamp. I told her that
the lamp was a glass of water, and that the man across the room was her
brother. It was suggested to her that his clothing was on fire and she
was commanded to extinguish the fire by throwing the lighted lamp at
the individual, she having been told, as was previously mentioned, that
it was a glass of water. Without her knowledge a person was placed
behind her for the purpose of quickly checking her movements, if
desired. I then commanded her to throw the lamp at the man. She raised
the lamp, hesitated, wavered, and then became very hysterical, laughing
and crying alternately. This condition was so profound that she came
very near dropping the lamp. Immediately after she was quieted I made a
number of tests to prove that she was deeply hypnotized. Standing in
front of her I gave her a piece of card-board, telling her that it was
a dagger, and commanded her to stab me. She immediately struck at me
with the piece of card-board. I then gave her an open pocketknife and
commanded her to strike at me with it. Again she raised it to execute
my command, again hesitated, and had another hysterical attack. I have
tried similar experiments with thirty or forty people with similar
results. Some of them would have injured themselves severely, I am
convinced, at command, but to what extent I of course cannot say. That
they could have been induced to harm others, or to set fire to houses,
etc., I do not believe. I say this after very careful reading and a
large amount of experimentation.”

Dr. Cocke also declares his belief that no person can be hypnotized
against his will by a person who is repugnant to him.

The facts in the case are probably those that might be indicated by a
common-sense consideration of the conditions. If a person is
weak-minded and susceptible to temptation, to theft, for instance, no
doubt a familiar acquaintance of a similar character might hypnotize
that person and cause him to commit the crime to which his moral nature
is by no means averse. If, on the other hand, the personality of the
hypnotizer and the crime itself are repugnant to the hypnotic subject,
he will absolutely refuse to do as he is bidden, even while in the
deepest hypnotic sleep. On this point nearly all authorities agree.

Again, there is absolutely no well authenticated case of crime
committed by a person under hypnotic influence. There have been several
cases reported, and one woman in Paris who aided in a murder was
released on her plea of irresponsibility because she had been
hypnotized. In none of these cases, however, was there any really
satisfactory evidence that hypnotism existed. In all the cases reported
there seemed to be no doubt of the weak character and predisposition to
crime. In another class of cases, namely those of criminal assault upon
girls and women, the only evidence ever adduced that the injured person
was hypnotized was the statement of that person, which cannot really be
called evidence at all.

The fact is, a weak character can be tempted and brought under virtual
control much more easily by ordinary means than by hypnotism. The man
who “overpersuades” a business man to endorse a note uses no hypnotic
influence. He is merely making a clever play upon the man’s vanity,
egotism, or good nature.

A profound study of the hypnotic state, such as has been made by Prof.
William James, of Harvard College, the great authority on psychical
phenomena and president of the Psychic Research Society, leads to the
conviction that in the hypnotic sleep the will is only in abeyance, as
it is in natural slumber or in sleepwalking, and any unusual or
especially exciting occurrence, especially anything that runs against
the grain of the nature, reawakens that will, and it soon becomes as
active as ever. This is ten times more true in the matter of
post-hypnotic suggestion, which is very much weaker than suggestion
that takes effect during the actual hypnotic sleep. We shall see,
furthermore, that while acting under a delusion at the suggestion of
the operator, the patient is really conscious all the time of the real
facts in the case—indeed, much more keenly so, oftentimes, than the
operator himself. For instance, if a line is drawn on a sheet of paper
and the subject is told there is no line, he will maintain there is no
line; but he has to see it in order to ignore it. Moreover, persons
trained to obey, instinctively do obey even in their waking state. It
requires a special faculty to resist obedience, even during our
ordinary waking condition. Says a recent writer: “It is certain that we
are naturally inclined to obey, conflicts and resistance are the
characteristics of some rare individuals; but between admitting this
and saying that we are doomed to obey—even the least of us—lies a
gulf.” The same writer says further: “Hypnotic suggestion is an order
given for a few seconds, at most a few minutes, to an individual in a
state of induced sleep. The suggestion may be repeated; but it is
absolutely powerless to transform a criminal into an honest man, or
vice versa.” Here is an excellent argument. If it is possible to make
criminals it should be quite as easy to make honest men. It is true
that the weak are sometimes helped for good; but there is no case on
record in which a person who really wished to be bad was ever made
good; and the history of hypnotism is full of attempts in that
direction. A good illustration is an experiment tried by Colonel de
Rochas:

“An excellent subject * * * had been left alone for a few minutes in an
apartment, and had stolen a valuable article. After he had left, the
theft was discovered. A few days after it was suggested to the subject,
while asleep, that he should restore the stolen object; the command was
energetically and imperatively reiterated, but in vain. The theft had
been committed by the subject, who had sold the article to an old
curiosity dealer, as it was eventually found on information received
from a third party. Yet this subject would execute all the imaginary
crimes he was ordered.”

As to the value of the so-called “laboratory crimes,” the statement of
Dr. Courmelles is of interest: “I have heard a subject say,” he states,
“‘If I were ordered to throw myself out of the window I should do it,
so certain am I either that there would be somebody under the window to
catch me or that I should be stopped in time. The experimentalist’s own
interests and the consequences of such an act are a sure guarantee.’”