GIST: "Many thanks to State Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa for filing
SB 130 to eliminate forensic hypnosis from Texas courtrooms. Grits has been fascinated with this topic since we first
discussed it on the podcast last year, and reporters at the
Dallas News and the
Dallas Observer have covered the subject as well. A
recent Psychology Today column on the topic concluded that the "cons" related to forensic hypnosis outweighed any "pros."
Most states' courts do not allow it. In
this Twitter-string in
response to SB 130, I briefly made the case for ending the practice. In
essence, modern brain science has shown most of the thinking behind it
is garbage. For example, recently I purchased a copy of the textbook the
Texas Commission on Law Enforcement requires for forensic hypnosis
trainings. That learned tome informs us that the "conscious" mind takes
up 1/8 of the brain and the "subconscious" 7/8(!), with memories stored
in the latter. It suggests "automatic writing" may be "useful in
eliciting suppressed" memories, as well as "age regression," allowing
witnesses to reenact past events. Another Tweet in that string cited to the
TCOLE curriculum for forensic hypnosis wondering
aloud why the state would require detectives being trained in forensic
hypnosis to demonstrate proficiency in post-hypnotic suggestions? (Item
14) Should detectives really be taught to implant memories in hypnotized
witnesses? That seems dubious, at best. There was a time when more than 800 Texas peace officers boasted
forensic hypnosis certifications. Today, just two agencies - Texas DPS
and the Harris County Sheriff's Office - employ nearly all of the fewer
than two dozen forensic hypnotists in the state. Indeed, forensic hypnosis appears to be a dying profession in Texas.
There aren't many trainings conducted anymore. Pam Colloff, Mandy
Marzullo and I wanted to take a forensic-hypnosis-certification course
this year, but could not find one given in the state of Texas throughout
all of 2018. Most practitioners boast gray hair and decades-long resumes, and there
doesn't appear to be an eager new guard anxious to stake their careers
on a practice that's perhaps a half step above a tarot-card reading in
terms of investigative utility. The Texas Legislature should absolutely pass Sen. Hinojosa's SB 130, and
while they're at it, they should get rid of this ridiculous
certification at TCOLE. It can't be fixed. There's no scientific version
of hypnosis-based memory enhancement to fall back on, even if the
agency wanted to revise its trainings, which mostly don't occur anymore. Anyway, TCOLE doesn't have sufficient curriculum staff to revise
outdated police trainings, which is a budget question this blog will be
revisiting later. They could use three additional FTEs for that purpose,
according to the "exceptional items"
request in their LAR. (And that's a no-BS request; their backlog is worrying.) Neither can the Legislature count on the Forensic Science Commission to
address the question, although they have received multiple complaints on
the topic. That's because, by statute, they are only allowed to
consider forensics related to "physical evidence." So hypnosis has
somehow slithered through unintended gaps in the government's
forensic-vetting apparatus. That leaves the issue on the Legislature's doorstep. The case seems easy
to make: In 2018, a curriculum suggesting police try to get witnesses
to engage in "automatic writing," or teaching cops to implant
post-hypnotic suggestions, doesn't even pass the laugh test. And yet
that's the state of evidence Texas courts have allowed, with the Court
of Criminal Appeals reaffirming the admissibility of hypnotically
induced testimony as recently as 2004. Courts in Texas have until now abdicated their duty to protect the
public from junk science when it comes to admissibility of forensic
hypnosis. In such instances, it's necessary and proper for the
Legislature to step in. Bully for Chuy Hinojosa for doing so."
