I've been evicted from apartments because of SOR, forced to vacate friends homes where I've stayed, and this on 4 separate occasions. Now it happens again, only this time a child is also victim along with myself and my wife.
Registry violates civil rights of offender's children and spouses
Dear Representatives of the People:
As citizens of a Democratic society, we all expect our inalienable rights to be honored. My parents taught me if we educate ourselves, work hard and treat others as we wish to be treated, we can accomplish anything. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case for certain individuals.
I grew up believing this country was the best in the world; that our justice system set an example for other nations. For the past 15 years, I've worked as a compassionate caregiver, an RN, with the desire to give back to the country I dearly love. I set my sights to make a difference. Yet, over the past 4 years, I have become extremely disillusioned about our so called democracy.
I am the wife of a non-violent sex-offender and we have two loving children. We are one of the 35 thousand sex offender families living in Florida. Because we are guilty by association, our civil liberties have been systematically desecrated. As a family, we no longer have rights to privacy and my children’s pursuit of happiness has been stripped away. This is unbelievable!
This summer, as we enter another hurricane season in Florida, I will help the needy, as I always have. Yet, despite my unconditional giving to society, they have a right to invade my privacy and ruin my children's expectation of childhood happiness. For the past 2 1/2 years, until their father, whom they love dearly, was re-united with us, we sang "The Sun will Come Out Tomorrow," and held onto the faith that peace and love will once again be part of our lives. We expected to put the past behind us and begin to rebuild a future as a family.
Unfortunately, because of Florida’s Sex Offender (SO) registry, this has not happened. We live in the shadow of fear ever since a neighborhood parent took it upon herself to copy information from the registry and hand it out during dismissal time at my children's school. This had the effect of a bomb detonating. Luckily, the Principal and school truant office stopped her, but not before the ripple effect of hysteria touched our entire community.
My nine year old son, who had play dates every day, no longer has one child to play with. Was this the goal of the legislators? This mother, who I don't even know (if she knew us enough to pass judgment, she would have faith that we are a decent family), has continued to pursue us and we have received visits from the Sheriffs office twice, the Division of Family service twice and most recently, she had an article posted in our community newsletter about the presence of my husband in the neighborhood. How can one woman have the right to cause my family so much harm?
How is it that our legislators, empowered with the duty to uphold the rights of all citizens, can cause harm to my family and others in our situation with such blatant disregard for our Civil Rights? Did they really intend to give a woman like this the tools to legally trample my basic rights as an American? My children and I have NEVER caused harm to another human being. Why do we NOT deserve the rights of every other family, including the families of other ex-felons (drunk drivers, burglars, drug dealers, etc.)? It is socially unconscionable to envision the methodological persecution and loss of freedom as once effected the American Indians, the Blacks and Jews.
Unfortunately, hysteria surrounding sex crimes are resultant from misconceptions over inaccurate data regarding recidivism rates and success of treatment for sex offenders. Various published state Department of Corrections (DOC) studies compare recidivism rates for sex offenders to the rates of other crimes. Many would be shocked at the truth that sex offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rates. In fact, a new report from Kentucky DOC, summarized below, show recidivism rates for treated sex offenders to be about 8%.
Sex offenses: 8.5%
Violent offenses: 29%
Drug offenses: 28.7%
Weapon offenses: 34.8%
Property crimes: 29.9%
Other offenses: 19.8%.
Contrary to popular belief, sex offenders have in fact, the lowest recidivism rates in study after study. In addition, a little known, yet important fact is, like my husband, 90% of sex offender crimes involve incest. Literature states that these offenders do not stray from familial grounds. What does this say? They are NO threat to others in the community and in most cases do not need to appear on the registry. It is appalling to see that the most educated country in the world has the most archaic laws grown out of emotionalism and hysteria from a few sad incidents. These laws do not reflect the true statistics. It is no wonder people are afraid; they do not have the facts.
If they knew the truth, would my neighbors be afraid of my husband? Would they fear the man who committed a non-violent act, sought help as an abused victim himself, readily confessed to what he did, demonstrated extreme remorse and was incarcerated for 2 1/2 years away from his own children and continued to receive counseling and is considered no risk to re-offend? Yet his picture and my address are in the Florida Sex offender registry.
Unfortunately, as a result of misconceptions prompting the registry, my children, ages 9 and 12, were forced to choose between living with the father whom they love and need or being lepers of society. We proudly chose to stick together as a family and fight this unjust insanity.
In theory, the SO registry is designed to do a good thing. However, in reality, logic speaks to the reasonable man, that if a Predator wants to abduct a child, he will accomplish this; at the local mall or even from a playground the next town over. Having his address, unless he has 24 hour surveillance, helps no one. Not one study has proven the efficacy of the sex offender registry in saving the lives of children. It merely serves as a basis for a false sense of security and serves to stretch thin already short staffed law enforcement personnel. A better utilization of these scarce resources may be to identify those truly at risk and concentrate on monitoring them. In my county there are 8 Deputy Sheriffs on a special task force to monitor 800 sex offenders, of which 35 are Predators!! It is quite ludicrous to expect these 8 officers to monitor 800 persons effectively, when they would be best served monitoring the 35 Predators instead. Yet these same Sheriffs have come to my house twice at the request of this lunatic woman who can’t believe that a sex offender lives in her neighborhood.
Instead of focusing fear on non-violent sex offenders, our community should fear the perpetrators of gang warfare, drug crimes, drunk drivers, and other felons who maim or kill one hundred thousand children a year. The public should insist upon these persons appearing on a registry, rather than persons like my husband- the gentle, loving and devoted father of my children who wishes nothing more than to give his children the chance to grow up with their Civil Rights intact.
As parents, we are ALL responsible for protecting our children. Yet, this should not be done at the expense of the children and families of the 550,000 registered sex offenders across the US. This punitive legislation only incites vigilantism and hardship and jeopardizes happiness of the innocent children in direct opposition to the promise our Constitution cries to uphold.
Childhood sexual abuse has become an epidemic of unimagined proportions and our current laws are ineffective in stemming the perpetuation of these crimes. In order to save our families of incest from the "death sentence" it forces, it may be prudent to promote proactive measures to solve these problems. Restorative justice and interventional, preventative counseling such as used for the drug offenders, and anger addicts makes more sense than incarceration for non-violent offenders seeking help.
Terminally tearing a family apart with incarceration should be the last sanction for those asking for help and wanting to work together with their families and heal through understanding, forgiveness and love. We need to find solutions to break the cycle!!
Please understand that I am not alone. I belong to a group of sex offender families across the country that faces the same challenges. They each fight their own battle, with the common goal to protect children. We, together, propose clear, precise community notification based upon accurate recidivism rates and level of threat. If the above cannot be accomplished, we request legislators to answer the question as to why all other crimes, with proven higher recidivism rates, and greater potential to harm children, are not listed on their own registry.
I cannot imagine myself or my children continuing to live under the shadow of the sex offender stigma. Let our country stand up and fight for the safety and civil rights of all children by enacting well informed and proactive legislation. We can provide a safer society for our children and protect their Civil Rights at the same time!
I entrust in you to question the social consciousness of these legislative acts and have faith in your tenacity to do the right thing. Please think out of the box to see a proactive stance on these issues as the only way to approach this American crisis. This alone will allow my children to develop the idealism I once had for this country. My children are gifted, honor students who have a bright future and a lot to offer this society. Please give them the freedom of each and every other person and allow them to pursue their own American dream with their Civil Rights intact. Remove non-violent low risk sex offenders from the registry. The State of New Jersey has an excellent example of a well reasoned proactive approach to sex offender registries.
I thank you for your time and attention. Please act soon.
Collateral Damage - Revictimizing the Children Roughly 90 persons (out of 100) who are deemed low risk of re-offence must register as a sex offender (in many states the registration requirement is for life). What has not been publicly discussed is the impact of registration on those 90% of registrants and specifically their families and children - many times the child is the victim, and they are doubly victimized when their family is humiliated and ostricized.
Reoffense or "Recidivism" Rates of Sex Offenders According to a recent report by the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Of the 9,691 released sex offenders, 3.5% (339 of the 9,691) were reconvicted for a sex crime within the 3-year follow-up period." It also states, "Within the first 3 years following their release from prison in 1994, 5.3% (517 of the 9,691) of released sex offenders were rearrested for a sex crime."
In United States v. Mound, 157 F.3d 1153, 1154, (8th Cir. 1998) (en banc), four dissenting Judges cite Law Review articles citing statistics finding the recidivism rate of released sex offenders is the second lowest rate of recidivism of all convicted felons. In State v. Krueger, Case No. 76624 (December 19, 2000, Eighth Judicial District of Ohio, unreported), two female Judges reversed a Sexual Predator adjudication, finding the statute is based on a false assumption and in essence, an "old wives tale" of popular beliefs contradicted by empirical data.
By writing the National Criminal Justice Reference Center, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, Maryland 20849-6000, you can obtain the following reports.
NCJ-163392 (February 7, 1997), Sex Offenses and Offenders: An Analysis of Data on Rape and Sexual Assault, finds the recidivism rate of 2,214 convicted rapists released from prison was 7.7% after three years. The only category of crimes with a lower recidivism rate are those persons convicted of murder (6.8%).
NCJ-193427 (June, 2002), Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994, finds the recidivism rate of 3,138 convicted rapists released from prison was 2.5% after three years. The only category of crimes with a lower recidivism rate are those persons convicted of murder (1.2%).
In April, 2001, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) released a report also on the recidivism rate of released sex offenders. In Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up of 1989 Sex Offender Releases, Office of Policy, Bureau of Planning and Evaluation, Paul Konicek, Principle Researcher, (available at www.drc.state.oh.us), the recidivism rate of 879 sex offenders released from Ohio’s prisons in 1989, after ten (10) years, was found to be 8% for new sex offenses.
1) Gibbons, Soothill, and Way, found in Furby, Weinrott & Blackshaw, 1989. (Twelve year study finding sex offender recidivism rate of 4%).
2) Gibbons, Soothill, and Way 1980, found in Furby, Weinrott & Blackshaw, 1989. (Thirteen year study finding sex offenders recidivism rate of 12%).
3) Hanson & Bussiere, 1996. (Mega-analysis of sixty-one sex offender studies with a total of 28,972 sex offenders finding recidivism rate for new sex offenses five years after release was 13.4%).
4) New York Department of Corrections, nine year follow-up study. Finding a 6% rate of recidivism for new sex offenses.
Research used obtained in part from www.sohopeful.org
There is currently no legal definition for hypnosis. In this discussion, I propose the following definition for hypnosis: “Artificially or Clinically Induced Dissociation.”
In her Abstract on hypnotic psychotherapy, Constance Spencer, Journal of Heart Centered Therapies, Spring 2000, had this to say about hypnosis: “…one way to explain the sum of the powerful effects of hypnosis is to regard the hypnotic trance as one of dissociation.”
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th Edition, 1994, is published by the American Psychological Association and is the ‘bible’ of the field of psychology. The manual states: “Dissociative trance involves narrowing or awareness of immediate surroundings or stereotyped behaviors or movements that are experienced as being beyond one’s control… the cognitive process (Author’s note: critical thinking) is suspended as the subconscious comes to dominate the focus.”
Interestingly, the statistical manual is a listing of dissociative disorders. The generally recognized goal of the psychologist, psychoanalyst, psychiatrist, et al, is to treat/modify behavior by bringing the subconscious (regressed/repressed memories and/or negative behavior patterns of the mind) to the forefront in order to cleanse/heal/correct negative behavior and/or the negative effects of emotional and psychological trauma. But in order to accomplish this goal, the psychologist/psychotherapist must first bring the subconscious to the forefront by creating a state of dissociation in the patient! It is the equivalent of creating more cancer in a patient in order to more effectively treat that cancer! What a lovely, profitable, religious, self- perpetuating racket. And the best part is that the modern witch doctors don’t even need to beat drums or smear cow dung in their hair.
The potential dangers of clinically induced dissociation are obvious, it is a Pandora’s box that no human being is qualified to open - regardless of the level of 'expertise.'. Psychologists and psychotherapists muddle around in the human psyche like proverbial bulls in the china shop with little or no real control over the outcome. We may very well literally be creating criminals. And this practice, when it is employed by supposed experts on the minds of our children – is potentially harmful and abusive. We need to seriously reexamine the entire field psychotherapeutic treatment. Oh, most would give smug assurances that, although the potential for harm exists, if treatment is employed properly and by trained professionals, we are safe. Hogwash. Therapists have become so arrogant that they hardly bother any more to gain informed consent before employing dangerous techniques. Furthermore, every honest practitioner in the field will admit that treatments can be used destructively and/or result in dangerous side effects beyond the ability of the therapist to control. Nearly all methodologies of psychology, psychotherapy, and psychiatry involve clinically created dissociation - hypnosis.
I am convinced that emotional catharsis, while providing temporary relief for some, can never provide stable, lasting changes, due to the fact that feelings/emotions, while an important part of our being, are fluid and unreliable. Emotions are not a primary, stable foundation for the human belief system. We may feel one way about something one day, and feel quite differently about it the next. Therefore feelings/emotions are not a stable foundation on which to build consistent character.How we feel about something is far less reliable than what we logically believe about it. And belief should be based on logic, critical thinking and deduction. This has placed me at occasional odds with my Logic and Philosophy professors. Logic is not “the science of argument.” The science of argument is the science of debate. Debate employs logic and facts, but debate is not logic. Logic is: “The objective, cognitive, analytical thought processes by which we internally and externally discover fact.”With this definition of logic in mind, the organization of the five branches of philosophy (logic, metaphysics, ethics, epistemology and aesthetics) is flawed in that the manner in which philosophy separates and categorizes them is wrong. Currently, the five branches are separated and defined so as to place the emphasis on the interrelated cycle of metaphysics (‘being’) and epistemology (knowledge is assumption/’theory’), with ethics, logic and aesthetics basically progressing out of the previous two. This is fundamentally flawed.The basis and foundation of all human endeavors must be founded upon logic (“the objective, cognitive, analytical thought processes by which we internally and externally discover fact”). Thus, the emphasis must be placed on logic, with the other four branches flowing from logical, critical thinking. I have a car that is flawed – but I still use it. To dismiss the senses (the primary means, combined with critical thinking, by which we discover fact) merely because they are sometimes flawed defies reason.It is ironic that we claim to be living in the age of reason and enlightenment, yet the field of psychology generally places greater emphasis on emotional catharsis than it does critical, analytical, cognitive thinking. Here is the stable foundation so often overlooked.Whether we believe evolution or our Creator made us to function with critical thinking at the forefront and automated responses in the background, the fact is that this is the way our minds normally function. The cathartic means (inducing dissociation to facilitate emotional cleansing) employed by most psychotherapeutic treatment methodologies – is counterproductive – the whole approach is flawed. We should be strengthening critical thinking – not bypassing it. “Artificially induced dissociation” should be the legal definition of hypnosis. I am in the process of educating lawmakers in this regard, for I believe that a legal definition must be anchored in law. Currently there is no legal definition for induction.The Biblical worldview is based on truth and logic. The Bible prohibits any dabbling in hypnotic phenomena. There are those, even those who warn of the possible dangers, who claim that, if properly employed, artificially created dissociation can be beneficial. I absolutely disagree. I believe the mind should be allowed to function, as it is originally intended to function – it is the primary function of critical thinking that should be strengthened.My knowledge and understanding in this field is, to a large degree, first hand. At one point in my life, I was the victim of the malicious, intentionally destructive use of psychotherapy by a criminal practitioner. It nearly destroyed me, but by the grace of God it was in fact the catalyst, which began my research into this field. I intend to expose this psychotherapist for the criminal he is very soon.I have included below two documents, which illustrate this concern in detail. The first is an A research paper I wrote in the spring of 2005. I mention my own research first, because it compellingly demonstrates, along with a vast amount of other research in the field, that all current disciplines of psychology and psychotherapy employ varying degrees and forms of hypnotic induction, which is “clinically or artificially induced dissociation.”This lays the groundwork for the second document, an excerpt of research done by Dr. Maurice Kougell, Ph. D., BCETS, warning of the potentially dangerous side affects of clinically induced dissociation.
The Religion of Psychology by Marty Wilson, All Rights Reserved In a 2005 Encyclopedia Britannica article entitled, “The Study of Religion” it is stated that an area of psychology currently being seriously considered is “the psychology of religion.” I contend that this phrase would be more correctly stated as “the religion of psychology.”Sigmund Freud is generally recognized as the father of modern psychology. Freud began his career using hypnosis, basing his early research on the work of Franz Mesmer (1734-1815). Mesmer coined the term “animal magnetism” as a definition of his hypnotic techniques. Our English word “mesmerize” is derived from Mesmer’s name. Freud later renamed his treatment technique “free association,” which, as will be discussed later, is merely a more benign term describing a more subtle form of hypnosis.According to Encyclopedia Britannica, Carl Jung, building on Freud’s methods, spent the latter part of his career studying what he believed to be the relationship between psychology and religion.1 Psychologists, in their efforts to determine the relationship, if any, between psychology and religion, have failed to recognize or admit that the psychology they practice is, in and of itself, a religious practice.We will begin by studying the hypnosis of Franz Mesmer, who defined hypnosis as “animal magnetism” before the commonly used word hypnosis was adopted. Mesmer’s “system of therapeutics, known as mesmerism, was the forerunner of the modern practice of hypnotism”(Enclyclopedia Britannica, 2005).Encyclopedia Britannica defines hypnosis as: “a special psychological state with certain physiological attributes.”2 I intend to demonstrate that all forms and specializations of psychology and psychotherapy have their roots in hypnotism and employ some form and varying levels of hypnotic induction. Psychology meets one dictionary definition of a religion. Psychology is merely a sophisticated, westernized, modern-day practice of pagan religion.Religion and Psychology Defined Webster’s Dictionary defines religion as: “belief in God…usually expressed in conduct or ritual…any specific system or belief…any object that is seriously pursued.” Webster’s defines psychology as: “1. the science dealing with the mind 3. a system of psychology.” And belief is defined as: “religious faith.”3 It is important at this juncture to make the distinction between a simple, cognitive belief in fact (2+2=4) and the human belief system, which is the core of our being. The type of belief being discussed here is the human belief system.Also of interest is the dictionary definition of psyche: “[Gr. Psyche, soul] Roman Mythology a maiden who becomes the wife of cupid and is made immortal…” It seems to me that Roman Mythology is definitely a form of religion. Also note that psyche is a Greek word meaning soul.The Origins of Psychology As mentioned, Sigmund Freud is the generally recognized father of modern psychology, who began his practice using Mesmer’s hypnotic techniques. Freud also drew from the hypnotic techniques of French professor Jean-Martin Charcot. According to David B. Stevenson of Brown University: “Freud eventually abandoned hypnosis… Using the technique of free association, Freud asked patients to relate anything which came into their mind… Freud's eventual practice of psychoanalysis focused not so much on the recall of these memories as on the internal mental conflicts which kept them buried deep within the mind, though the technique of free association still plays a role today in the study of the mind.”4The term free association is an important one. Using this technique, Freud would ask patients to relate anything that came to mind. It is intended to create a catharsis, or relieving of the emotions by transferring memory “from the unconscious to the conscious” (Stevenson). Here we begin to uncover the real nuts-and-bolts, foundational premise of all psychology and psychotherapy whatever the specialization – the relationship between the conscious and subconscious mind. All modern forms of psychology, psychotherapy and psychiatry are built on this foundational premise.I intend to demonstrate that hypnosis, free association, psychology, psychiatry, psychotherapy (such as EMDR), neuro-linguistic programming (Ericksonian ‘conversational’ hypnosis), dissociation/ dissociative trance state and catharsis are terms so closely related as to be interchangeable regarding their dealings with the subconscious mind. Further, I intend to demonstrate that all the subsequent terms listed have their roots in, and employ elements of, the first, namely – hypnosis (hypnotic induction).Hypnosis There is no legal definition for hypnosis. In their book, Hypnosis and Behavior Modification (pages 6-8), William Kroger, M.D. and William Fezler, Ph.D. note that historically hypnosis has been an integral part of pagan religious practices and world religions, such as Assyro-Babylonian exorcism, Egyptian soothsaying, Jewish Mysticism, Byzantine Catholicism, Chinese Taoism, Sufism, Hinduism, Shintoism , forms of Buddhism (Tibetan and Zen), and Yoga. They conclude that: “…hypnosis has been practiced in one form or another in the civilized and uncivilized world under many different labels since the dawn of history.” This observation is extremely important because hypnotic induction is an integral part of all psychology and psychotherapy.As stated, the modern, western practice of hypnosis began with Franz Mesmer, with Freud later using the techniques of Mezmer and others. Freud renamed his hypnotic technique “free association” but hypnotism remained an integral part of his technique. Freud never rejected hypnosis, and saw “free association” as the natural evolution of his earlier techniques.5Though there is not yet a legal definition of hypnosis, it is generally accepted and characterized by a substantially reduced ability to think rationally and a marked increase in susceptibility to suggestion. Hypnotic induction is a “…shift in concentration, executed in a passive manner (such as occurs in daydreaming or sleeping), resulting in a state of consciousness distinguishably different from alertness… It is characterized by narrowing of attention, reduced rational criticalness (Author’s note: reduced ability to think critically), and increased response to suggestion.”6 I remind the reader of Britannica’s definition of hypnosis: “A special psychological state.”Roy Hunter, MS, CHt, one of the most respected authorities in the field of hypnosis, has this to say about the definition of hypnosis: “To me, the most accurate way to define hypnosis is to call it ‘guided meditation.’ Since many of us enter a meditative or ‘trance’ state while listening to music, watching TV, listening to a good speaker… or even while reading… the hypnotist does not even have to be a live person.”7One of the most respected authorities in the field defines hypnosis as simply “guided meditation.” A psychologist or psychotherapist attempting to treat a patient is leading the subject through a conversational exercise in guided meditation. And if every day activities such as reading and listening to music are considered as a form of hypnotic meditation, how much more so is a specific system of psychology designed to treat the relationship between the conscious and subconscious mind? What follows “How Hypnotic Induction Works,” are observations resulting from my personal research into the dangers of psychology and hypnosis.How Hypnotic Induction Works 1.) Indirect Hypnotherapy, developed by Milton Erickson, embeds hypnotic induction techniques into conversation/communication/counseling, usually without the knowledge or consent of the subject.2.) Conversational induction techniques are employed (those that provoke strong emotions or mental confusion are the most effective in overloading and suspending critical thinking and thus bringing the subconscious to the forefront). Through the introduction of selected stimuli, critical thinking is confused, overloaded and tends to shut down as a safety mechanism, which brings the subconscious to the forefront.3.) This induction produces an altered state, (also called dissociation and trance state) in the subject.Explanation: Our normal mental state has critical, logical thinking at the forefront and automated responses (subconscious) in the background. Examples of subconscious or automatic responses would be breathing and our automatic responses to certain environmental stimuli.Normal State
Critical Thinking - Subconscious/Automated Response
(Forefront) ...….. ……... (Suppressed)In a Dissociated state, this is reversed:Dissociated/Trance State
Subconscious/Automated Response - Critical Thinking
(Forefront) ……. ……. (Suppressed)4.) Once this Dissociated State has been achieved, the practitioner then implants suggestions into the subconscious/automated response system which tend to become concrete in the mind of the subject (referred to as anchoring).5.) These suggestions can be negative and destructive and anchored to stimuli selected by the practitioner - which can result in automated, which would be, to a certain degree, involuntary responses and behavior. This process needs to be recognized and stopped early.6.) And all of this can take place without the subject ever knowing or understanding what is happening to them.“Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field...”(Genesis 3:1). The above hypnotic process goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden, and is exactly what the serpent used to deceive Eve. Additionally, all psychology and psychotherapy employ the same basic formula, albeit generally with the knowledge and consent of the client.Dissociation – Trance State Dissociate is briefly defined by Webster’s Dictionary as “to sever association with.” Dissociation is also classified as hypnotic phenomena: “Hypnotic phenomena that are common automatic responses… include amnesia, hyper amnesia, dissociation.” 8 In a state of dissociation “there is a lack of integration of knowledge (Author’s note: decrease in rational criticalness), memory, and voluntary control which is expressed as a feeling of unreality and a change in the sense of self (Authors note: a trance state). Dissociation characterizes not only PTSD, but many other altered states of consciousness, including hypnosis and dreaming…. One way to explain the sum of the powerful effects of hypnosis is to regard the hypnotic trance state as one of dissociation.” (Spencer, emphasis added). Dissociation is a altered state of consciousness.The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th Edition, 1994, is published by the American Psychological Association and is the ‘bible’ of the field of psychology. The manual states: “Dissociative trance involves narrowing or awareness of immediate surroundings or stereotyped behaviors or movements that are experienced as being beyond one’s control… the cognitive process (Author’s note: critical thinking) is suspended as the subconscious comes to dominate the focus.”Psychology Interestingly, the statistical manual is a listing of dissociative disorders. The generally recognized goal of the psychologist, psychoanalyst, psychiatrist, et al, is to treat/modify behavior by bringing the subconscious (regressed/repressed memories and/or negative behavior patterns of the mind) to the forefront in order to cleanse/heal/correct negative behavior and/or the negative effects of emotional and psychological trauma. But in the attempt to accomplish this goal, the psychologist must first bring the subconscious to the forefront by creating a state of dissociation in the patient! It is the equivalent of creating more cancer in a patient in order to more effectively treat that cancer! What a lovely, profitable, religious, self- perpetuating racket. And the best part is that the modern witch doctors don’t even need to beat drums or smear cow dung in their hair. None other than NLP.COM itself readily admits that: "Any process which relies on communicating and changing the unconscious mind is hypnotic in nature. "Any process which relies on communicating and changing the unconscious mind" includes virtually all specializations of psychology, psychotherapy and psychiatry.All forms and specializations of psychology use the above means in an attempt to either replace the current belief system with a new belief system at the subconscious level, or to integrate conflicting belief systems. “The client, not unlike those in more traditional psychotherapy, continues to assess and challenge their beliefs…ego strengthening can be progressively increased by exchanging negative beliefs for positive beliefs… to ameliorate the effects of dysfunctional beliefs…” (Spencer, emphasis added). Webster’s dictionary defines belief as: “religious faith.”The newest fad in the field of psychotherapy is EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing). At least the fads are becoming more honest; this pshco-therapy uses eye movements to create the desired dissociation (trance state) in the subject being ‘treated.’ It is more honest in that it is not far removed from the stereotyped image of the hypnotist waving the pendulum in front of the eyes of the dupe (patient).Another, more deceptive method of hypnotic manipulation, which has become prevalent in the past twenty years, is Neuro-Linguistic Programming. This form of ‘conversational’ hypnosis was pioneered by Milton Erickson. “We're going to study what's called Ericksonian hypnosis, after Milton H. Erickson. Ericksonian hypnosis means developing the skills of a hypnotist so well that you can put someone into a trance in a conversation in which the word hypnosis is never mentioned.” (emphasis added)9 The alarming (and revealing) thing is that Erickson’s methods are beginning to make inroads into the field of general psychology.Conclusion A rose by any other name. Call it hypnosis, free association, psychology, psychoanalysis, psychotherapy, EMDR, dissociation, NLP, occultism, pagan religion, witch doctors or Betty Crocker – it matters not a wit. All (accept Betty Crocker) have one common thread – the subconscious mind. In one way or another, and by whatever means, all attempt to tinker with the human condition by influencing/treating the subconscious mind by employing some form of hypnotic induction. And hypnotism has its roots in pagan mysticism. All branches listed above are from the same trunk, hypnotism, which in turn has its roots in pagan religion. It is time we wake up and smell the snake oil.I will close with selected quotes from authorities in the field.10Psychologist Roger Mills: “The field of psychology today is literally a mess. There are as many techniques, methods, and theories around as there are researchers and therapists. I have personally seen therapists convince their clients that all of their problems come from their mothers, the stars, their bio-chemical makeup, their diet, their lifestyle, and even the ‘kharma’ from their past lives.”Psychiatrist Sigmund Koch: “The hope of a psychological science became indistinguishable from the fact of psychological science. The entire subsequent history of psychology can be seen as a ritualistic endeavor to emulate the forms of science in order to sustain the delusion that it already is a science.”Psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey: “The techniques used by Western psychiatrists are with few exceptions on exactly the same scientific plane as the techniques used by witch doctors.”Carl Jung: “…we psychotherapists must occupy ourselves with problems which, strictly speaking, belong to the theologian.”Richard Feynman (Nobel Peace Prize): “Psychoanalysis is not a science [and it is] perhaps more like witch-doctoring.”American Psychiatric Association: “An experiment at the All-India Institute of Mental Health in Bangalore found that Western-trained psychiatrists and native healers had a comparable recovery rate. The most notable difference was that the so-called ‘witch doctors’ released their patients sooner.”Psychiatrist Thomas Szasz on psychology: “It is not merely a religion that pretends to be science, it is actually a fake religion that seeks to destroy true religion.”At the close of her abstract lauding the supposed benefits of hypnotic psychotherapy, Constance Spencer counsels: “Occasionally a client will have difficulties imagining a safe place and can be prompted to imagine their own ‘Garden of Eden’.”To which I remark:
‘Complete with Resident Ericksonian Serpent’
Possible Dangers and Complications (In Treatments using Hypnosis)
By Maurice Kouguell, Ph.D., BCETS
Is hypnosis in any way dangerous?The following is a presentation of the review of the literature and reported individual cases. The reader will have to decide what conclusions to draw from the following study. The literature points out some complications that can arise from the use of hypnosis and it seems that all established writers and researchers do suggest the importance of the knowledge of the working of the mind and applying the rule - THAT IF A PERSON CANNOT TREAT A PROBLEM WITH NON-HYPNOTIC TECHNIQUES, HE SHOULD NOT TREAT IT WITH HYPNOSIS. This is taken from 'Clinical Hypnosis' by Crasilneck and Halls, one of the standard recognized textbooks on hypnosis. The same authors report also that hypnosis can be dangerous not only to the client but also to the operator and to hypnosis itself.Dangers and Complications of Hypnosis While the hypnotic trance itself may occur comfortably and easily, Dr. Thurman Moct reports complications occurring:1.Following amateur hypnosis
2.When a symptom is removed by a direct command
3.When hypnosis is used in the treatment of a condition that the hypnotist is not trained to treat without the use of hypnosis
4.When an inadvertent post hypnotic suggestion has been givenTo take this further, in "Hypnosis Complication, Risks and Prevention," a research article by MacHovec, in The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1988, he lists about 50 complications associated with hypnosis and reports that this is only a partial list. The author grouped the complications into five categories:1.The psychotic symptoms or acute panic attacks
2.Depression with the possibility of suicidal behavior
3.Symptom substitution
4.Symptoms resulting from inadvertent suggestions
5.Masking physical pathology.Dr. Mac Hovec defines hypnotic complications as "unexpected unwanted thoughts, feelings or behaviors during or after hypnosis which are inconsistent with agreed goals and interfere with the hypnotic process by impairing optimal mental functioning with no prior incidents or history of similar mental or physical symptoms."Summary list of complications associated with hypnosis: anergia, fatigue, antisocial acting out, anxiety, panic attacks, attention deficit, body/self-image distortions. comprehension/concentration loss, confusion, coping skills, impaired decompensation, psychotic-like delusional thinking, depersonalization, depression, de-realization, dizziness, dreams, drowsiness, excessive sleep, fainting, fear of fearfulness, guilt, headache, histrionic reactions, identity crisis, insomnia, irritability, medical emergencies, memory impairment, distorted or misunderstood suggestions, nausea, vomiting, obsessive ruminations, over-dependency, personality change, phobic aversion, physical discomfort, injury, psychomotor retardation, psychosis, regressed behaviors, sexual acting out, sexual dysfunction, spontaneous trance, stiffness, arm or neck stress, lowered threshold, stupor, symptom substitution, tactile hallucinations, traumatic recall, tremors, or uncontrolled weeping.The same researcher described risk factors as most frequently involving repressed materials or unconscious needs; personality dynamics such as resistance, regression, secondary gains, misunderstood suggestions, attitudes and expectations. He also adds the risk factor to the hypnotist, which he describes as falling into two categories:1.Professional risk factors related to a deficiency or weakness in education, training or knowledge, skill, ability or experience, which impair judgment or proficiency.
2.Theoretical bias which limits awareness of other factors or dynamics.Kleinhauz, M and Beren, B., in an article entitled "Misuse of Hypnosis: A Factor in Psychopathology," published in the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, talk about a client who came for smoke ending and became extremely agitated and depressed and experienced suicidal thoughts. In my own practice, and I have mentioned this at some of my workshops, I had worked with a man who came for smoke cessation and after he was relieved from the habit, he went into a severe depression. He was one of the cases that prompted my own feeling about the importance of an assessment prior to any hypnotic protocol.Kieinhauz and Eli, reported four cases of "deleterious effects of hypnosis used in the dental setting." The first was a woman successfully treated with dental hypnosis for removal of apprehension and analgesia. She asked her dentist to use hypnosis to help her stop smoking and she too developed in a very short time an anxiety-depressive reaction with obsessive thoughts and was unable to cope with everyday activities. The second one, a woman with dental phobia preventing dental treatment for ten years, received five sessions of relaxation and anxiety reduction. Finally she decided to begin dental work and "although the patient was in deep relaxation and showed no tension whatsoever, the moment local anesthetic injection was attempted she manifested a spontaneous abreaction with uncontrollable weeping and hyperventilation."The third case was a woman treated in four sessions for dental phobia. it was suggested to her that her "unusual good hypnotic response would occur whenever she would come for dental treatment." She arrived at the next session feeling confused; she felt in a trance from the time that she left her house. She was responding literally to "the precise suggestion given so her the week before." The suggestion was changed to "the moment that she sat in the dental chair" and there were no further incidents. The fourth case was a young woman treated with dental hypnosis for analgesia because of hypersensitivity to local anesthetics. She reported "feeling dizzy riding her motorcycle home" and it became apparent that the de-hypnotization was too quick and incomplete.In the literature, authorities have been urging caution in the use of hypnosis for over 100 years. As far beck as 1887, Bjornstrorn cautioned of the possible injuries and fatal effects. Janet, one of the forefathers of hypnosis, in 1925, recommended that "awakening should be postponed if a morbid symptom of any sort should intervene during the hypnotic state." Weitzenhoffer warned about special care in avoiding the adverse effects of hypnosis and related those to the "competency and integrity of the practitioner". In 1961, Meares expressed concern about premature termination. Also, Weizenhoffer warned against inappropriate symptom removal "before symptoms are suggested away some of the functions they serve should be determined."Side Effects of Hypnotism Numerous mild side effects occur during a hypnotic induction and at times these mild reactions might also occur following a post hypnotic suggestion. Dr.Thurman Mott reports "numerous mild side effects occur during induction's." These are usually not reported and have not been studied systematically, however, although they do occur usually during the first induction, they might be expected to reoccur with psychiatric patients. The most common of these side effects during the induction could be the increase of anxiety frequently related to fears of loss of control and excessive crying and sobbing. At times patients feel dizzy and develop various degrees of nausea during the induction. Spontaneous regression to a traumatic event or period of life, although rare, does happen.In my own practice, one of my clients during an interview, went into trance with her eyes open and relived spontaneously an earlier sex abuse experience. Most of the side effects can usually be alleviated quickly by discontinuing the induction or by proceeding with the induction and usually the side effects will disappear as the hypnotic state deepens. An appropriate technique should be applied. The concern of symptom substitution was one danger of hypnosis reported by many practitioners. Symptom substitution currently, because of the better training of hypnotists, has been replaced by symptom modification, which then permits the patient so retain the symptom if it is dynamically important to do so.Inadvertent Suggestions Patients under hypnosis tend to accept suggestions concretely, if not literally and this might result in adverse reactions, which may come as a surprise to the therapist. For instance, Crasilneck and Hall in their text Clinical Hypnosis: Principles and Applications, discuss the case of a burned patient. While working on improving the patient's nutrition, the patient was given the suggestion that he could eat everything on his plate. One day the patient became ill and vomited on his plate and was later discovered eating the vomitus. Masking physical pathology could be a very delicate outcome of hypnosis where the patient has pain because of a physical condition and is now completely controlled by hypnosis. The reason for the physical discomfort is now totally overlooked thus creating other problems. Dr. Fromm, in her book Values in Hypnotherapy: Theory, Practice and Research, describes hypnosis as a state of decreased vigilance resulting in a vulnerability which involves dangers if a patient is in the hands of a poorly trained incompetent therapist using hypnosis".
Email:shilohcomes@mychristiansite.com
