4 replies to this topic

[Xenojjin]

I was reading about lawyers a long time ago and noticed something that was somewhat disturbing to me .


Many lawyer's are apperantly trained hypnotists and have had intense psychology training . The reason they are hypnotists is because they want to be able 'to
convince' the judge / jury . I am not surprised by this , but I really believe that this is a major flaw in the American Judicial system ( And any other system like it ) .

If lawyers are hypnotists , then what is the courtroom ? Is it a place of justice ,  or is it a stage ? . It seems to me based on the fact that their are plenty of bogus lawsuits thaty are passed everyday , the courtroom is really just too see who is the better hypnotists in what lawyers call "battle for the jury" . Dont get me wrong , evidence of what the actuall lawsuit is comes in to play .

But based on what I have seen , evidence only seems to take up 60% of the case . 40% is left to the lawyers and their manipulation of the court . I am sure other cases have more evidence , but it still probobly comes in as 60% . Based on that , for all we know , our courtrooms are only 60% accurate when coming to a decision ! Seems steep ... but bogus lawsuits seem to be passed everyday . Its even worse when a case has almost no evidence to back it up , then the courtroom truly is a performing stage . Or as the movie "CHICAGO" stated "three ring circus"

Something tells me the American court system isn't actually set up to find the right answers , but more of to find an answer the puplic can believe . If you ask me ... the fact we even allow lawyers like this in a courtroom is absurd .   

[Fluffybunny]

I would have you consider the other side to your post.

For one, hypnosis in a courtroom setting amongst unkown and unwilling people would be impossible, hypnosis doesn't work that way. People have to be willing(and aware) of the hypnosis. The proicess of getting people into a hypnotically suggestive state isn't somethat that can be done without everyone noticing...In the middle of court a lawyer couldn't get away with "I would like the members of the jury to be very relaxed...take a deep breath..."

Psychology training would be an important factor for a lawyer. If you are to be able to adequately represent or defend your client, you would need to know every aspect of how the human mind works and thinks.

Aside from the obvious(knowing whether or not your client has the mental capability to stand trial), Other factors go into why psychology is important to lawyers. What is the most effective way to get your point across to the judge/jury? How does the human mind process the information it is receiving? Is there a way to present your information that would have a better chance of staying in the judge/juries memories?

Can the lawyer use thse skills to evaluate whether witnesses are being biased in their opinions or statements? Are they false or planted memories that are coming up in testimony? It goes on...

No one likes to hear about "the obviousely guilty" defendant getting off on a technicality more than me. I think that happens quite often, usually due to a mistake on the polices procedure and handling of the case.

I do think that lawyers should use whatever tools are necessary in order to give their clients a fair trial.

[Xenojjin]

Their are many types of hypnosis or mind control methods . The one you are thinking of is the one used for therapy , which people must be willing and aware of ( obviously lawyers dont use this ) . I am referring to more basic techniques such as "voice rolling" or subliminal messaging , and most popular used of all ... Emotinal impulse . These are techniques that can make people believe in something totally absurd as the technique is disguised as reason , people don't need to be aware of what is going on .

If you ever go to a trial , you will see what I mean . You will most likly see one of the three techniques being used . You will most likely see the most effective one being used ,which is emotional impulse . Emotional impulse uses straw man arguments mainly aimed at a persons emotions in order to fool them into thinking something totally irrational , it is also used by the government in propaganda .

I hope you now know what I am referring to .


You are right that Lawyers can use psychology for good , but based on the ridiculous trials we have been having today ( such as that mcdonalds coffee thing   ) I would say half of them do not use it for good . Lawyers generally can tell whether their client is the liar or not so therefore we have one Lawyer lieing and the other lawyer telling the truth . Evidence comes into play , but it still can be interpretted in certain ways .

[Fluffybunny]

The emotional impulse that you speak of, and the tools used in  Neuro-Linguistic programming are very powerful, but also very helpful. Like anything else, it can be used for good or bad. It is just a tool.

I think that condemning at entire group of people(lawyers in this case) as being scum is a bit harsh. I know several lawyers, most are defense lawyers, but I also know an ADA in our area. From what I understand, malicious prosecution is more common than we would like to think.

In my opinion, it is more dangerous for prosecutors to use these techniques than defense lawyers, as there is more at stake. there are many innocent people convicted on circumstancial evidence. It is scary to think that incocent people are sent to jail, but it happens all of the time.

I would not want to see guilty criminals go free. The system was setup so that "100 guilty men should go free, rather than one innocent man should be condemned". That was the idea anyway long ago. Unfortunately looking at that ratio, you would still have 1% of the people in prison be innocent. Not so good if you are in that 1%

The techniques that we are talking about can be used anyway they want, and they are a double edged sword. The other team can use them too... Prosecutions cases are based on evidence and as such are pretty hard to deny if all procedures are followed. If the evidence convicts, then it does and that is fine. My concern is with the circumstancial cases that are open to interpretation. Pretty scary stuff if you are innocent.

I wouldn't condemn all lawyers for the actions of some unethical lawyers.

[Xenojjin]

( myself)