Apparently, some people can be hypnotized into a kind of revulsion for bad habits like smoking and alcohol.

So, why not crime?

I thought about this while reading the letter Aldous Huxley wrote to George Orwell in 1949 on the publication of Orwell's famous book 1984.



Dear Mr. Orwell,

It was very kind of you to tell your publishers to send me a copy of your book.

Agreeing with all that the critics have written of it, I need not tell you, yet once more, how fine and how profoundly important the book is.

May I speak instead of the thing with which the book deals — the ultimate revolution?

The first hints of a philosophy of the ultimate revolution — the revolution which lies beyond politics and economics, and which aims at total subversion of the individual's psychology and physiology — are to be found in the Marquis de Sade, who regarded himself as the continuator, the consummator, of Robespierre and Babeuf.

The philosophy of the ruling minority in Nineteen Eighty-Four is a sadism which has been carried to its logical conclusion by going beyond sex and denying it.

Whether in actual fact the policy of the boot-on-the-face can go on indefinitely seems doubtful.

My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I described in Brave New World.

I have had occasion recently to look into the history of animal magnetism and hypnotism, and have been greatly struck by the way in which, for a hundred and fifty years, the world has refused to take serious cognizance of the discoveries of Mesmer, Braid, Esdaile, and the rest.

Partly because of the prevailing materialism and partly because of prevailing respectability, nineteenth-century philosophers and men of science were not willing to investigate the odder facts of psychology for practical men, such as politicians, soldiers and policemen, to apply in the field of government.

Thanks to the voluntary ignorance of our fathers, the advent of the ultimate revolution was delayed for five or six generations.

Another lucky accident was Freud's inability to hypnotize successfully and his consequent disparagement of hypnotism.

This delayed the general application of hypnotism to psychiatry for at least forty years.

But now psycho-analysis is being combined with hypnosis; and hypnosis has been made easy and indefinitely extensible through the use of barbiturates, which induce a hypnoid and suggestible state in even the most recalcitrant subjects.

Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.

In other words, I feel that the nightmare of Nineteen Eighty-Four is destined to modulate into the nightmare of a world having more resemblance to that which I imagined in Brave New World.

Thank you once again for the book.

Yours sincerely,

Aldous Huxley

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2111440/Aldous-Huxley-letter-George-Orwell-1984-sheds-light-different-ideas.html


Of course, he refers here to using hypnosis as a instrument of totalitarian slavery...but WHAT IF it were simply used to make the idea of harming others as undesirable as smoking becomes to this subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBufIVL2V50

Apparently, some people can be hypnotized into a kind of revulsion for bad habits like smoking and alcohol.

So, why not crime?

Perhaps some criminals could be hypnotized into a revulsion for crime.

Smoking and drinking alcohol are hardly merely "bad habits." People may have a variety of motivations for using intoxicants. Not rarely, those motivations are basically "to smoke or drink away their worries."

So for such smokers and drinkers, unless those motivations are addressed in a healthy way, the person won't be able to stop smoking and drinking; or, even if they do, they will seek another avenue to achieve the same goal - such as by overeating, gambling, overshopping etc.

Criminal behavior is very complex. Which is why addressing and changing it will have to be complex as well.

Carcano, amigo, you need to see the film A Clockwork Orange before you discuss this. It's not exactly hypnosis, more like brainwashing, that is utilized, but viewing this film will give you proper perspective, I daresay.

Only if you can also hypnotize away economic inequity and starvation.

Carcano, amigo, you need to see the film A Clockwork Orange before you discuss this. It's not exactly hypnosis, more like brainwashing, that is utilized, but viewing this film will give you proper perspective, I daresay.
I knew somebody would bring this up, but the idea in Clockwork Orange is quite different from the one presented by Huxley.

The character Alex is 'cured' by being given a nausea inducing drug and then forced to watch violent films. He isnt hypnotized, so the revulsion is merely a conscious association.

Huxley's idea is that drugs may be used to cause a highly suggestible hypnotic state in which the authorities can alter thinking and behaviour subconsciously.

Only if you can also hypnotize away economic inequity and starvation.
How much of non drug related crime is caused by poverty?

@Carcano --

You go for a week or a month without food and money to get food and you'll be surprised at what you'd do for some food.

You go for a week or a month without food and money to get food and you'll be surprised at what you'd do for some food.
What most people do who cant get a job is rely on charity, or they might sell drugs, turn to prostitution, pick up a guitar and start singing on the sidewalk, etc.

I dont believe selling drugs (with some conditions) or prostitution should be illegal.

What I'm interested in non drug related crime.

@Carcano --

.....Or they might start stealing, or mugging people to get enough money to eat.

Again, you've obviously never been very hungry.

Or they might start stealing, or mugging people to get enough money to eat.
Yes they might, and this indicates a fundamental difference in their ethics from someone who would take charity instead.

@Carcano --

No, I think it has far more to do with ease of access than it does with an inherent difference between persons. Sometimes it's difficult to get charity and in some places charities really aren't that accessible for certain groups of people. Sure, if you're one of those people who can easily get charity you would be more likely to choose that route. If, however, you can't or what they're willing to give isn't enough(try raising even just one child on charity these days and see how well that goes) then you need another source of food, money, shelter, and whatnot. And if the most readily accessible form happens to be stealing food from your local grocery store, most people without food in their bellies won't even think twice about it.

We all value our right to life more than we value the rights of others to property, and rightly so in my not-so-humble opinion.

Again, this isn't nearly so cut and dry as you are presenting it to be. There are thousands of variables that need to be taken into account, and they have been by other people. What these other people found was that the two biggest driving factors of crime, both drug and non-drug related, were financial inequity and starvation. Of the two I think that starvation is the stronger force, but that's just my opinion.

What these other people found was that the two biggest driving factors of crime, both drug and non-drug related, were financial inequity and starvation. Of the two I think that starvation is the stronger force, but that's just my opinion.

This is an example of making a case with the most EXTREME examples imaginable.

Have you ever read Stephen King's autobiography called 'On Writing'?
He describes the world on his rural youth as being one of incredible poverty most kids couldn't even imagine today. A lot of kids didnt even have shoes, or even sandals. Stephen made his own sandals out of old rubber tires.

And yet, there was very little crime...most people didnt even lock their doors.

Same goes for Marlon Brando"s wonderful biography 'Songs my Mother Taught Me'. Back in the early 1950s he could actually park his unlocked motorbike on the streets of New York...and when he came back it would still be there. :eek:

I wouldn't lock my door either if I had nothing worth stealing. If there were families flaunting swimming pools while children could barely eat I'm sure the crime rate would have been higher. Just because people are desperate doesn't mean they won't consider risks. There comes a point where a person decides the uncertainty of their next meal outweighs the repercussions of criminal activity, and its usually a conscious rational decision.

It's not that hard to imagine is it? How long could you go afraid of tomorrow when there are people who live in extremely luxury all around you? At the very least I'd steal my neighbors basketball and make a sandal out of that instead of a nasty rubber tire.

I don't believe hypnosis would change desperation. Anyways it's the power of suggestion, the patients aren't doing anything they don't want to do.

I don't believe hypnosis would change desperation. Anyways it's the power of suggestion, the patients aren't doing anything they don't want to do.
There is no reason for starvation and desperation in our society...do you really think people get into the mafia for example because they are starving???

But your point about not being able to change 'core intentions' through hypnosis is a good one.

Take food stamps for an example. Sure, they have a means to eat but its through an entity that's not personally invested in their well being. Complications occur and if a family goes under because glitch/lost/stolen/unqualified/expired/records/etc happens then they just become another statistic.

It's not just about food but loss of control over their life. When you live by the dollar everything becomes an issue. Electricity, clothes, toilet paper, water, medicine. Add a spouse to the picture, things got worse. Lets have children and now its hell. Would you like to talk about the social stigma attached to poverty and how crippling that can be by itself?

Sure poverty isn't the only contributor to crime (though I believe its the biggest) there are other factors to consider. Mental illness, cultural upbringing maybe even genetics. But the idea of someone being a criminal just for the sake of being a criminal doesn't sit well with me.

The mafia seems like a pretty extreme example, wouldn't you say? I'm not sure it's relevant for typical crime.

**Edit**
I feel inclined to respond anyways. I've never seen the godfather or done any research on the mafia but it isn't hard to imagine most members were probably born into the business. Once you know the family secret I don't think you have much of a choice about future plans. Maybe some members joined to protect themselves from rival factions, I know this can be a reason why youth join gangs.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure most were driven by greed as well... but there are easier safer ways to make money. By the end of the day its still a job with responsibilities, with big risks and big pay offs. Loyalty's pretty important and if your sole intent was to make money, I can't imagine you lasted long.

@Carcano --

Way to ignore half of the equation. Remember they didn't find that the biggest factor in crime was starvation, but a combination of financial inequity and starvation.

Again, it's quite obvious that you've never been really hungry in your life.

Crime is usually caused by both a societal definition of what criminal is being radically out of touch with consensus opinion or down to a person own inhibition centre not identifying a criminal act as negative or over emphasising positives from criminal gain.

In fact some crimes might not have been crimes to begin with (they might of been grey areas or loopholes) or further still some crimes might have reviews about the law itself. There is then the factor that every country has it's own definition of laws so it's not universal.

While you could "brainwash" a person not to commit a crime in one place, they might unwittingly do so where there might be higher restrictions. (For instance you might stop someone shoplifting but they might be openly gay, that's fine in most democratic parts of the world but not so in say "Iran".)

In essence it wouldn't be an efficient treatment if possible because it would constantly require updating much like the laws.

Apparently, some people can be hypnotized into a kind of revulsion for bad habits like smoking and alcohol.

So, why not crime?


As you state, only SOME people can be hypnotized but not very many so how would we ever know if anyone was actually hypnotized or just faking it? :shrug:

Imagine if someone said they won't kill anyone again after being hypnotized then go out and kill again, that wouldn't be very smart.

As you state, only SOME people can be hypnotized but not very many so how would we ever know if anyone was actually hypnotized or just faking it? :shrug:

Imagine if someone said they won't kill anyone again after being hypnotized then go out and kill again, that wouldn't be very smart.

This can be supplemental to when a person gets released from jail. Doesn't necessarily mean it will reduce any sentence.

Anyway, I like the brainwashing better....

While you could "brainwash" a person not to commit a crime in one place, they might unwittingly do so where there might be higher restrictions.
As a general definition the hypnosis would only apply to 'bringing deliberate harm to others'.

Not conformity with a specific legal code.

We have to say 'deliberate' because intention is legally important.

Even a dog knows the difference between being tripped over and being kicked.