Random thought: Is mind control technically illegal?

[Lord Seth]

I don't mean mind control as in browbeating someone into submission like in the real world. I mean mind control as in the kind you see in fantasy stories where someone is able to straight up control someone else's actions through magic. Is there technically any law that actually forbids it?

I guess I'm just wondering, if someone showed up and did use magical powers to control people's minds in the real world, if there's anything you could actually charge them with.

[Jeff the Green]

I don't know if there's anything specifically prohibiting it, but it is against the law to coerce people to do certain things and mind-control would probably count as coercion. For example, if you made your victim murder someone you'd be the one found guilty.

[TheThan]

How about subtle manipulation?
It’s a staple of evil chess masters, magnificent bastards and Xanatos gambit plots. The bad guy convinces the good guy to do things that benefit the bad guy. Usually without letting the hero in on the fact he’s aiding the very person he’s trying to stop.

That’s a form of coercion and can be seen as a form of mind control (you're manipulating someone to do something for you).

[Lord Seth]

How about subtle manipulation?It's completely irrelevant to my question. I was specifically talking about the kind of manipulation you'd do by magic. The sort of thing you'd see in fantasy. Stuff like the Suggestion spell in D&D, the way vampires in some continuities are able to turn people into thralls with their magic, the Imperious curse in Harry Potter, etc. I'm talking about if you have the ability to just go up to a random person, tell them do something, and that forces them to do it. Subtle manipulation isn't related at all to what I was asking about.


I don't know if there's anything specifically prohibiting it, but it is against the law to coerce people to do certain things and mind-control would probably count as coercion. For example, if you made your victim murder someone you'd be the one found guilty.Coercion/duress did strike me as a possibility, though I suppose it depends on how strictly it's defined. After all, the way it's normally done is by threats. Is the wording of laws prohibiting coercion broad enough to include outright mind control?

[Coidzor]

I don't mean mind control as in browbeating someone into submission like in the real world. I mean mind control as in the kind you see in fantasy stories where someone is able to straight up control someone else's actions through magic. Is there technically any law that actually forbids it?

I guess I'm just wondering, if someone showed up and did use magical powers to control people's minds in the real world, if there's anything you could actually charge them with.

The act itself? Probably not due to generally not having laws for things that don't or can't exist in the real world as far as we know, but basically anything you could do with it would be illegal.

Mind control sex = rape

Mind control theft = theft/extortion/embezzlement/fraud/etc.

Mind control minions = false imprisonment, kidnapping

[tomandtish]

As always, I recommend "Law and the Multiverse". Their website takes many comic and TV show issues and looks at them under the light of existing U.S. law. This post (http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2011/06/17/mailbag-for-june-17-2011/)talks about telepathy and mind control, as well as having links to quite a few of their other articles on the issue.

Incidentally, they point out that it could very well be considered battery in many jurisdictions. Assuming you could prove that it occurred at all.

Word of caution: They have even more articles than the ones linked in that one. Some of them are on extremely serious issues (mind control and sexual assault for example).

So use care if any of these issues may be triggers for you. They do take the issue very seriously, but acknowledge a lot of the problems faced even now, much less if you added psychic or magical powers into the mix. In short, some of the articles are not light-hearted reading.

[Taet]

That blog is amazing. :smalleek:

[Jeff the Green]

Coercion/duress did strike me as a possibility, though I suppose it depends on how strictly it's defined. After all, the way it's normally done is by threats. Is the wording of laws prohibiting coercion broad enough to include outright mind control?

It probably varies by statute and jurisdiction, but I'm fairly sure that some statues use something similar to Wikipedia's definition: "Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force."

[tomandtish]

It probably varies by statute and jurisdiction, but I'm fairly sure that some statues use something similar to Wikipedia's definition: "Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force."

Yeah, I'm sure they can find something to charge you with once you convince them that mind control occurred in the first place. Of course, convincing them....

"But I swear! Jeff the Green used his mental powers to make me run naked through the streets of New York yelling 'Belkar is God'! Why won't you believe me?!?"

"He also made me watch all the 'Twilight' movies! It was ... it was ... horrible!" :smallfrown:

So, do they go arrest Jeff the Green? Or quietly call for the nice men in the white coats?

[Lord Seth]

As always, I recommend "Law and the Multiverse". Their website takes many comic and TV show issues and looks at them under the light of existing U.S. law. This post (http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2011/06/17/mailbag-for-june-17-2011/)talks about telepathy and mind control, as well as having links to quite a few of their other articles on the issue. Wow, that's really useful! Probably the best information I'll be able to find on the topic. Thanks.

[The Succubus]

So, do they go arrest Jeff the Green?

No other sensible or logical course of action presents itself.

....what was the question again? :smalltongue:

[Serpentine]

We don't usually legislate against things that don't actually exist, like I don't think there's many places where it's illegal to trade in unicorn horn.
I feel like a lot of legislation that would specifically address mind control, though, would also cover things like a lot of advertising techniques. Some of the stuff they can do is scary.

[hamishspence]

As always, I recommend "Law and the Multiverse". Their website takes many comic and TV show issues and looks at them under the light of existing U.S. law. This post (http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2011/06/17/mailbag-for-june-17-2011/)talks about telepathy and mind control, as well as having links to quite a few of their other articles on the issue.

Seems like the sort of thing that could make for an interesting book - along the lines of the various "Science of X" books:

(The Physics of Star Trek, The Biology of Star Trek, The Science of Star Wars, The Physics of Doctor Who, etc)

In this case, it might be "The Law in Superhero Fiction". (Or just Law and The Multiverse, as per the website name).

EDIT: On closer examination - apparently they already did that:

http://lawandthemultiverse.com/the-book/

[tomandtish]

Wow, that's really useful! Probably the best information I'll be able to find on the topic. Thanks.

My pleasure.

Yeah, their site is pretty cool. I'm not a lawyer but have always found it pretty interesting. Apparently others do also. Enough lawyers have that they are actually able to offer classes (http://westlegaledcenter.com/program_guide/course_detail.jsf?courseId=47628776) based on some of their work that count for CLE credits (Continuing Legal Education). (They have three others besides that one).

[Jay R]

[All of the following applies only to Anglo-American law. Not all legal systems are common-law-based.]

There is no specific law against anything we believe is impossible. Using witchcraft to put curses on people was illegal when people thought it was possible; it isn't illegal now. There is no law against telepathic mind control, jumping to the moon, or stealing Lake Erie.

On the other hand, legal principles are often applied in places they weren't originally built for. When people started using parabolic dishes to "steal" channels they hadn't paid for, one of the precedents used was a medieval case about an apple tree that spread over a fence, and dropped apples on the neighbor's yard.

If it became possible to steal Lake Erie, then mineral rights laws would probably be invoked. If somebody could jump to the moon, then air traffic access laws would apply.

Suppose somebody could use telepathic mind control (and the police and justice system came to believe it). There are already laws on the books about forcing people's actions, and using their bodies, without their permission. They would probably be extended to cover the situation applying common law principles, and then the statutes would be modified to explicitly cover the action.

Again, this is based on the system of common law, in which precedents can be applied to new situations.

[Bulldog Psion]

It's roughly the equivalent to drugging someone in such a manner that they become compliant. Proving that it had been done would probably be impossible without the use of some kind of magic, also. But I think it would be illegal the second one mind came to prevail over another. At a minimum, it sounds like kidnapping. I'm sure that assault, torture, coercion, and a host of others could be added in quite easily, too.

[Traab]

Its possible it would fall under existing laws, but when you consider the difficulty in getting the courts to acknowledge stuff like say, cyber bullying or stalking, its probably less likely. At least not right away. There would have to be all sorts of legal battles trying to justify expanding existing laws to include this brand new method of breaking them, or pressuring the government to write new laws that address it directly.

[tomandtish]

A commonly accepted definition of battery (may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction):

The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff.

The Act The act must result in one of two forms of contact. Causing any physical harm or injury to the victim—such as a cut, a burn, or a bullet wound—could constitute battery, but actual injury is not required. Even though there is no apparent bruise following harmful contact, the defendant can still be guilty of battery; occurrence of a physical illness subsequent to the contact may also be actionable. The second type of contact that may constitute battery causes no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or insulting to the victim.

Intent Although the contact must be intended, there is no requirement that the defendant intend to harm or injure the victim. In Tort Law, the intent must be either specific intent—the contact was specifically intended—or general intent—the defendant was substantially certain that the act would cause the contact. The intent element is satisfied in Criminal Law when the act is done with an intent to injure or with criminal negligence—failure to use care to avoid criminal consequences. The intent for criminal law is also present when the defendant's conduct is unlawful even though it does not amount to criminal negligence.

Intent is not negated if the aim of the contact was a joke. As with all torts, however, consent is a defense. Under certain circumstances consent to a battery is assumed. A person who walks in a crowded area impliedly consents to a degree of contact that is inevitable and reasonable. Consent may also be assumed if the parties had a prior relationship unless the victim gave the defendant a previous warning.

There is no requirement that the plaintiff be aware of a battery at the time it is committed. The gist of the action is the lack of consent to contact. It is no defense that the victim was sleeping or unconscious at the time.

Harmful or Offensive Conduct It is not necessary for the defendant's wrongful act to result in direct contact with the victim. It is sufficient if the act sets in motion a force that results in the contact. A defendant who whipped a horse on which a plaintiff was riding, causing the plaintiff to fall and be injured, was found guilty of battery. Provided all other elements of the offense are present, the offense may also be committed by causing the victim to harm himself. A defendant who fails to act when he or she has a duty to do so is guilty—as where a nurse fails to warn a blind patient that he is headed toward an open window, causing him to fall and injure himself.

Note the bolded and underlined part in The Act. That in itself could allow a jurisdiction to charge anyone forcing mind control on someone else with battery. After all, I think most of us would find having our free will taken from us offensive.

As before, I think there would be no problem getting a charge even under existing laws once you convinced others that it occurred. They can usually find something to charge you with if they really want to.

[Bulldog Psion]

Its possible it would fall under existing laws, but when you consider the difficulty in getting the courts to acknowledge stuff like say, cyber bullying or stalking, its probably less likely. At least not right away. There would have to be all sorts of legal battles trying to justify expanding existing laws to include this brand new method of breaking them, or pressuring the government to write new laws that address it directly.

I think that turning someone into a puppet goes a few degrees of magnitude beyond cyberbullying on the illegal scale.

Like I said, I assume it would automatically count as kidnapping, for starters.

[Slipperychicken]

I don't mean mind control as in browbeating someone into submission like in the real world. I mean mind control as in the kind you see in fantasy stories where someone is able to straight up control someone else's actions through magic. Is there technically any law that actually forbids it?

I guess I'm just wondering, if someone showed up and did use magical powers to control people's minds in the real world, if there's anything you could actually charge them with.

If you convinced them it was real, I bet you could get a court to treat it like drugging or coercion.


I'm not a legal expert, but even if mind control wasn't on the books, I'm sure they could find an excuse to lock you up anyway.

[veti]

First up, check your jurisdiction. There are countries in this world - and for all I know, places within the USA - where you can still be executed for witchcraft.

Second, if you use a controlled person to do something illegal and the court could be convinced that you'd done it (see below), then you'd be charged with that. If you use a controlled subject to commit murder, for instance - well, there is precedent for charging dog owners for murder when their dogs maul someone to death, even if the owner never intended it to happen. If you have sex with them, that's rape - and thanks to the publicity about certain drugs, that would probably be one of the easiest cases to win now. If you use them to commit a robbery - tricky, but if you ever end up in possession of any of the loot, expect a very heavy incoming book. If your motive is political, then terrorism and/or conspiracy charges would get you for sure.

I did a quick Google for laws around crimes committed under hypnosis. I was expecting more hits, to be honest - there's not much out there, and most of what there is, is written by self-serving charlatans peddling their own books rather than citing actual case law. One exception was this article (http://www.adam-eason.com/2011/11/01/derren-brown-hypnotic-coercion-and-the-evidence-base%E2%80%A6/) by Derren Brown:


In the 1989 Old Bailey court case of R. v. Mohammed, Sarah Mohammed had been accused of involvement in a murder attempt. Expert evidence given by Dr Mottahedin and Professor Hayward at the trial suggested that Sarah mohammed had become a slave to her husband as a result of being hypnotised and subsequently brainwashed by him.

Dr Mottahedin subsequently wrote about this in the journal Contemporary Hypnosis in 1992 in his work entitled “Was hypnosis involved in the Nelson case?” and suggests that it was because of the evidence he gave that Sarah Mohammed received a suspended sentence while her husband got 8 years in prison.

There have been other attempts made in a court of law to suggest hypnosis was used to aid the crime. For those interested in further investigation, please take a look at the Australian court cases of R. v. Palmer (New South Wales Supreme Court) in 1979 whereby the judge believed the accused hypnotized the victim of an alleged rape to make the crime easier, and the case of R. v. Davies (County Court of Melbourne) in 1986 where again, the accused was supposed to have used hypnosis to disable the alleged victims ability to resist the rape.

Despite hypnosis being used in these cases, there was no discernable or indisputable evidence to demonstrate that hypnosis actually was used to make these things happen; just that it was involved. Isolating hypnosis as the cause has been incredibly difficult and troublesome to prove.

(Emphasis added.)

So the hard part is going to be proving it in court. In general, you can't (by mind-control alone) force someone to do something physically impossible, or that otherwise proves beyond doubt that there's anything going on besides (at most) temporary insanity. So unless your particular form of mind control shows visible signs (which other witnesses could testify to), or unless you admit to it, it would be extremely hard to make the charges stick.