|
This article is an electronic version of an article originally
published in Cultic Studies Journal, 1998, Volume 15, Number 1, pages 83-86.
Please keep in mind that the pagination of this electronic reprint differs from
that of the bound volume. This fact could affect how you enter bibliographic
information in papers that you may write.
In favor of a per se exclusion of hypnotically influenced testimony: A reply to
Hoover
Robert A. Karlin, Ph.D.
Martin T. Orne, M.D., Ph.D.
Hoover (1998) begins his comments by saying, "Karlin and Orne’s position
supporting the per se exclusion of hypnotically refreshed testimony is plainly
shaped by their experience of the use of hypnosis in therapeutic settings." In
this, he is simply incorrect. Our opposition to admitting the testimony of a
previously hypnotized witness was shaped by the results of scientific studies
and by our experience with hypnosis in forensic settings (not in therapeutic
ones). This evolution can be seen in a change of positions from Orne (1979),
which suggested safeguards for forensic hypnosis to Orne, Soskis, Dinges, &
Carota-Orne (1984), which advocated a per se exclusion.
Full text available through
ICSA E-Library.
|
