Whenever someone goes to court it's usually their word against someone elses, if that person is infact guilty, yet the jury finds him innocent he is free and can not be convicted for the same crime once released.
Probably just silly but it's an idea, if the person on trial was hypnotised they have no say over their hypnotic state and if the hypnotist asks them they have to tell the truth because in their state of hypnosis they are telling exactly what comes from the brain. Just felt sharing as it seemed at good idea. What does anyone else think?

i think, what in the hell does this have to do with the forum you are in?

Hypnosis isn't that reliable. There are entirely too many factors at play, and with all the questions, and cross-examinations, and general atmosphere of a courtroom, it would be close to impossible for a hypnotist to guarantee any sort of hypnotic state, let alone reliable responses.

From what I know about hypnosis , putting someone under it against their full consent is impossible . They would be way too nervous , and even worse it would be possible for a person well educated in hypnosis to fake being hynotized in court .

Also , people can still lie under hypnosis in cases of extreme denial . Reality is subjective to the person who experiences it .

I had a simmilar idea why don;t they use Lie Detector tests in court if they're almost fool proof why don;t they just take a test.

Very simple and cheap to

Hypnosis is nowhere near as developed as you might think. In order to hypnotize someone, you need three very important factors to be present (among many lesser ones):

1) They must be relaxed and comfortable, which is rather difficult for someone about to enter trial. This, in turn, leads to number two:

2) They must want to be hypnotized. You can't wave a spinning wheel in front of someone, and have them in your control. Hypnosis starts with the patient following a psychiatrists directions, and an unwilling patient (someone who is guilty of the crime they're being tried of, for example) will not do this.

3) The person must be highly susceptible to suggestion. For the most part, people will subconsciously follow on the suggestions of others, however this is never completely reliable.

My question is, what's the stop the person from faking a trance and feigning innocence when they are, in fact, guilty?

Lie Detectors are anything but fool-proof, and it is the operator that makes the final call one whether the person is telling the truth or not. The only thing the lie detector does is tell you how nervous the person is.

Exactly. Polygraphs show a person's heart-rate and breathing patterns -- these can be affected by ANY emotionally reaction to a question, not just guilt. Basing a verdict on one would be a gross miscarriage of justice (I've been watching way too much Law & Order lately. Smack me if I ever use the phrase again.)

In most states testimony under hypnosis is inadmissable nor is info from a polygraph. The reasons for polygraphs have already been explained but to be clear on the hypnosis thing there are in fact two reasons. First when some one is under hypnosis it takes very little effort to implant false memories in there head. You can in fact do so with out even trying to. This has been proven time and again both with the infamous cases of satanic ritual abuse in the 80s and the modern hypnotic sillyness of past life regression and alien abduction(see Season 1 of Penn and Teller's Bullsh*t for a more detailed look at the inherent problems). Second nothing about the hypnotic state enforces any kind of control over the person. THey are more inclined to listen to what you tell them but they don't actually have to do any thing. You can easily lie under hypnosis even when told to tell the truth because you are in fact still under complete control just tricked into thinking some one else can give you suggestions to follow.

Exactly. Hypnosis is not some form a mind-control; it's a highly-relaxed mental state, nothing more.