Critical Analysis of Criminal Responsibility Under Hypnosis: A Perspective Based on the Theory of Fault and Principles of Criminal Equity

Abstract

In the criminal law system, criminal responsibility can only be attributed when the mens rea (mental element of the offense), composed of knowledge, will, and intent, exists in the perpetrator. In situations such as hypnosis, where the individual is influenced by suggestion and experiences a diminished state of consciousness, the attribution of criminal responsibility faces serious challenges. In such cases, defining the boundary between volition and involuntariness and assessing the moral blameworthiness of the actor requires an integrated approach combining the theory of fault with the principles of criminal equity. This study aims to analyze the status of criminal responsibility of a hypnotized individual and to evaluate the possibility of attributing fault under these conditions, seeking to present a scientific framework for determining, mitigating, or eliminating responsibility based on theoretical foundations and comparative practice. The present research has been conducted in a theoretical–analytical manner using library, jurisprudential, and legal sources, as well as interdisciplinary studies in psychology and forensic psychiatry. A comparative approach has also been adopted to examine the legal systems of the United States, France, and England. The findings indicate that the theory of fault allows for the exclusion of responsibility in cases where genuine will and awareness are absent, while the principles of criminal equity, by emphasizing the individual’s psychological and social conditions, strengthen the grounds for individualization of responsibility and the adoption of proportionate legal responses. Comparative analysis demonstrates that many advanced legal systems recognize hypnosis, when scientifically verified, as a factor that negates or mitigates responsibility. In Iranian law, there exist legal and jurisprudential capacities for acknowledging this condition; however, legislative and procedural gaps have hindered its effective application. Accepting partial or non-responsibility in states of hypnosis requires legislative reform, expert psychological assessment, and judicial training within the framework of equitable justice.