The Law and Lucid Dreaming

I'm quite sure that this has been discussed before in some way shape or form.

Do you think it will, or should, reach a point where people should be somehow restricted or rewarded for what they dream about? Obviously not, I presume.

But do you think it should hold some weight in a court of law? Would what someone dreamed about help justify a crime?

For example. A mother assaults her neighbour after he has a brief conversation with her.

But what if this neighbour had told her in explicit detail, something very wrong, very disturbing he had enacted in one of his dreams? Regarding her children? The law recognizes that as something regarding taunting or provoking assault. But do you believe that it should be taken further? Sure the man didn't actually do anything to the mother or her family, but he dreamed it in perfect detail.

I dunno. I think its a sticky situation. Wouldn't it drive you insane with rage or shame if you knew that the kid in the dark corner at school was dreaming, doing things to you every night?

Not to come across as a creep or anything :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ethereal

Wouldn't it drive you insane with rage or shame if you knew that the kid in the dark corner at school was dreaming, doing things to you every night?

---

If someone directly tells you about those things (dreamed or not) there could be some kind of verbal aggression which could be as harmful as physical aggression or even worst.

On the other hand, if you keep for you what you do with your DC's, there's no attack on anybody but their reflections on your brain. Being judged for these kind of actions would be like being judged for attacking someone's shadow on the ground if you know what I mean.

That's why I think on the DJ forum it's recomended not to use their real names for DC's. To avoid this kind of verbal abuse on some susceptible people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ethereal

But what if this neighbour had told her in explicit detail, something very wrong, very disturbing he had enacted in one of his dreams? Regarding her children? The law recognizes that as something regarding taunting or provoking assault. But do you believe that it should be taken further? Sure the man didn't actually do anything to the mother or her family, but he dreamed it in perfect detail.

---

Dreams don't prove anything. Its just the subconscious at work, manifesting thoughts and ideas, often provoked by the things we are exposed to in our day, like television shows, advertising, conversations, and the internet.
If someone dreams that they have attacked someone else, it doesn't mean they have or ever will.
However, if people start to harass and threaten you by reminding you that they regularly kill or rape you in their dream... whether its true or not, thats creepy, and you might have a case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Box77

If someone directly tells you about those things (dreamed or not) there could be some kind of verbal aggression which could be as harmful as physical aggression or even worst.

On the other hand, if you keep for you what you do with your DC's, there's no attack on anybody but their reflections on your brain. Being judged for these kind of actions would be like being judged for attacking someone's shadow on the ground if you know what I mean.

That's why I think on the DJ forum it's recomended not to use their real names for DC's. To avoid this kind of verbal abuse on some susceptible people.

---

Which is why I'm not asking if you should be convicted for it, but if it should have some weight, perhaps as an excuse for aggravated assault. Lucid Dreaming something isn't the same as imagining it, and if the insultee was a lucid dreamer too, the insult/taunt would have so much more of an impact.

Just to clarify, I mean in Lucid Dreams. One can't be blamed for what they dream about naturally.

if it's found some lucid dream entries in a dream journal where someone performs some killing stuff. I think, somehow it could be used as an aggravating factor which shows intention to kill in the case of murder as an example.

I don't think it would weight anything at all, just like you get to release stress by hitting stuff, you could just argue that in the dream, you were doing that so you wouldn't go agressive, in which case, it would mean nothing for laws <.<

what about someone who killed his wife (i.e.) and he argues that it was an accident. During the trial, the only kind of evidence is a dream journal, with explicit content relating to the murder? wouldn't it have any weight?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Box77

what about someone who killed his wife (i.e.) and he argues that it was an accident. During the trial, the only kind of evidence is a dream journal, with explicit content relating to the murder? wouldn't it have any weight?

---

I doubt it. Even if it was content that could be accurate, dreams are pretty unpredictable. If you look at a normal person's DJ, there's always weird stuff that you might never think they would have thought of. It's no solid proof in my opinion.

The only thing I could see it holding any weight in is "probable cause."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

Spoiler for From wikipedia...:

The most well-known definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime".[1] Another common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".[2]

In the context of warrants, the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)". "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. Even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source or supported by other evidence, according to the Aguilar-Spinelli test.

What it sounds like to me is you can't convict someone on probable cause. However, if you give enough evidence to your suspicions, you will be able to obtain the necessary warrants to search a premises in hopes of finding substantial, convictable evidence.

If the dream journal was THE ONLY piece of evidence, I can't see that even going to trial. There's no substantial proof.

Is someone threatening you in the way you described, Ethereal?

Nope.

wait - basically you are asking regarding the legal implications of what you do in dreams? I don't understand why this topic is replied to with "serious" thoughts at all. You can rape, pillage, kill, slash,burn, commit acts of terrorism,genocide, humanicide,racism,misogyny, defaecate on people if that's your thing in dreams - you can even destroy the universe! Your question is the same as asking "if I kill someone in a computer game will I be a murderer?".

I don't think that's what he means, yuriythebest.
The way I understand it is, for instance:
A man is suspected of murdering his workmate, but there is no evidence for this. However, every night, his wife hears him mumbling about murdering the victim and sees him mimicking stabbing. She reports this to the police. Should his dreams of murder count as evidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Folqueraine

A man is suspected of murdering his workmate, but there is no evidence for this. However, every night, his wife hears him mumbling about murdering the victim and sees him mimicking stabbing. She reports this to the police. Should his dreams of murder count as evidence?

---

well, if he was having these dreams beforehand then definitely:shadewink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yuriythebest

well, if he was having these dreams beforehand then definitely:shadewink:

---

Or the workmate is a douche and a lot of people want to off him. It's circumstantial.