If you look at this case, you will find some myths about hypnosis that are still guiding legal decisions . . . and they are still wrong, law or not, they are myths:

"basic principle that, no matter how an offense is defined, the minimal requirement for criminal liability is conduct which includes a ‘voluntary’ act or omission. This excludes all ‘involuntary’ acts such as reflex actions, acts committed during hypnosis, epileptic [seizure], etc." . . . Commentary to Criminal Law Revision Commission Proposed Oregon Criminal Code, Final Draft and Report (July 1970), § 8. Other legislative history echos the commentary; committee minutes reveal that the minimum requirement for criminal culpability is that the person "must do something *** that he is able to do." Minutes, Senate Criminal Law and Procedure Committee, SB 40, February 17, 1971, p 9. Excluded from criminal liability are involuntary acts, such as reflexive acts, acts committed under hypnosis, or acts committed during an epileptic seizure. Id. . . . . The legislative history reveals the legislature’s intent more clearly. Acts that occur when the actor is unconscious, while having a seizure, or that are reflexive do not result in criminal liability because the actor, on account of the seizure or the hypnosis, no longer possesses the ability to choose his or her actions; those actions are beyond the person’s ability to control.

Sorry folks, but hypnosis may seem to be a state of complete mind control in the movies and in literature, but it just doesn’t work that way. People are still responsible for the actions in hypnosis, same as any other state. Study after study has found that you can’t be hypnotized to do something criminal or against your deeper moral values . . . just because stage hypnotists can indeed get folks to perform unusual stunts, these actions are done as part of the context of entertainment so the subjects know there is a context of playfulness and basic safety and non-seriousness. Take away the hypnotic context and they may not accept the very same suggestions. Sure, folks can use influence coupled with hypnosis to seduce or change beliefes or get behaviors to change . . . but if the hypnotic context is removed, those folks could still be influenced and would still be responsible for their actions.

Just because the law says it, doesn’t make it so.

Don’t get me wrong, there are powerful changework techniques that can come to bear and change beliefs and the like but the person is not going to be running around like a mindless automaton. The person is still responsible for accepting the suggestions. Hypnosis is not a failsafe excuse to do antisocial acts. Responsibility for committing such acts still lies within the individual committing them. If someone has consensual sex with a hypnotist, it is not because of the hypnosis alone . . . at some level, the subject wanted the sex to occur, assuming we’re not talking about rape. If someone is hypnotized to steal or murder, it is not the hypnosis that causes the acceptance of such suggestions. Responsibility is still there. Just as . . . if someone chooses to stop smoking or lose weight with hypnosis, they have to choose to accept those suggestions and say "yes" to making those changes.

Just because some old law is still on the books that misidentifies what can be done with hypnosis, doesn’t make it so.