Prosecute Psychics, Homeopaths, Reiki Practioners, etc...???? [Archive]

Prosecutor1

2nd December 2003, 08:00 AM

I am a "bright" prosecutor in a jurisdiction of approximately 80,000. Recently I discovered that there was a "licensed" counselor who offered past life regression therapy and Reiki, both of which are obvious bunk.
The question I have is this:
As a practical matter, would an investigation/prosecution of people like this be a waste of time in light of the fact that I would received a wave of crticism from everyone from peers of people like this to people in the "faith community" who espouse healing by prayer? Additionally, I would have to prove a case to twelve jury members, all of whom I can rest assured would not be intelligent, skeptical, faithless individuals who would see the case the same way I see it.
In principle, I am very tempted to go after these people because I view them as nothing more than frauds. However, the reality is that we live in a world of mysticism, spritualism, and dominant religous organisations that would all see a prosecution like this, no matter how wacky even they view the practitioner, as a prelude to coming after "mainstream" relgious preachers who may hold healing sessions themselves.

Any feedback by this group would be most appreciated.

Drooper

2nd December 2003, 08:15 AM

Under what legislation would you be prosecuting and what would be your case?

geni

2nd December 2003, 08:21 AM

If you win other praticioners well simply claim that they were not real (ie lacked proper training were one of the many con artists who fill up this area we of course are the real thing...)

If you lose we will never here the end of it. The claim will be that they have been shown to be right in court.

Matabiri

2nd December 2003, 08:22 AM

Could you get them under some kind of "honesty in advertising" law, and at least force them all to print "for entertainment and placebo purposes ONLY" on all their material?

Prosecutor1

2nd December 2003, 08:24 AM

Deceptive Business Practices. Basically selling goods or services that don't do what it's claimed that they do. However, if an investigation revealed that someone was harmed by the practitioner, I could charge and assault, possibly a felony. For instance if someone was convinced that Reiki could cure their cancer better than a medical doctor and subsequent harm resulted, I think that would make for a criminal offense, possibly negligent homicide. I'm sure there are other examples. The easiest (if you could call it that) would be the deceptive business practices.
One problem I could forsee, and which I discused personally with Randi last week, was that I, as the prosecutor, would have the bruden of proving that the claimed treatment didn't work, instead of the usual stance of skeptics that holds the claimant to the burden of proof. The legal system would require that I prove to a jury of six or twelve that the claimed service doesn't work. I would like to believe that it is possible to convince six people that Reiki (waiving arms over someone to balance their CHI) is mystical bulls**t. The problem I see though is the arguments against these prosecutions in general. Would I then start going over evangelical preachers who teach the healing power of prayer or the annointing with oil? Why is Reiki any more nuts than that? Those kind of arguments would then make the jury members who weren't avowed athiests start thinking about the beliefs that they hold that can't be proven. There's simply no way to get a jury filled with atheists.

Matabiri

2nd December 2003, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Prosecutor1

One problem I could forsee, and which I discused personally with Randi last week, was that I, as the prosecutor, would have the bruden of proving that the claimed treatment didn't work, instead of the usual stance of skeptics that holds the claimant to the burden of proof. The legal system would require that I prove to a jury of six or twelve that the claimed service doesn't work. I would like to believe that it is possible to convince six people that Reiki (waiving arms over someone to balance their CHI) is mystical bulls**t. The problem I see though is the arguments against these prosecutions in general. Would I then start going over evangelical preachers who teach the healing power of prayer or the annointing with oil? Why is Reiki any more nuts than that? Those kind of arguments would then make the jury members who weren't avowed athiests start thinking about the beliefs that they hold that can't be proven. There's simply no way to get a jury filled with atheists.

Surely if the advertising is making a claim, it's up to the advertiser to produce evidence that the claim is correct, rather than the prosecutor to prove that it's incorrect? Otherwise the situation's open to all sorts of abuse from people claiming that such-and-such didn't work "because your attitude was wrong" or similar. Surely they have to prove that under the right circumstances, it does work?

Suddenly

2nd December 2003, 08:35 AM

You do have a rather large slippery slope problem w/r/t what types of "fraud" you go after. However, being a defense lawyer I can spot one huge loophole if you try to go under a "fraud" type theory:

It isn't fraud if the practitioner really believes what he is doing really works. This makes him an idiot, not a fraud. There may be liabilty in tort for this sort of thing, but not criminal liability.

I'd suggest that you wait until someone manages to at least establish civil liability.

ceo_esq

2nd December 2003, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Matabiri
Surely if the advertising is making a claim, it's up to the advertiser to produce evidence that the claim is correct, rather than the prosecutor to prove that it's incorrect? Otherwise the situation's open to all sorts of abuse from people claiming that such-and-such didn't work "because your attitude was wrong" or similar. Surely they have to prove that under the right circumstances, it does work? Since the falsity of the advertising claim is an essential element of the offense, I can't believe that in any U.S. jurisdiction the initial burden would be on the defendant in this case. As unfair as that seems in this particular case, to do otherwise would unacceptably shift the burden of proof away from the prosecution. Defendants don't have to make a prima facie establishing their compliance with the law.

Tmy

2nd December 2003, 08:57 AM

The problem I have is that mainstream religions do the same things but get a pass cause DA's dont want to piss off the locals. Why not bust christian faithhealers, theyre on TV every week! How about catholic preists who preform excorsims? Why not arrest parents for child abuse when they have thier babies circumcised?

ceo_esq

2nd December 2003, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly
You do have a rather large slippery slope problem w/r/t what types of "fraud" you go after. However, being a defense lawyer I can spot one huge loophole if you try to go under a "fraud" type theory:

It isn't fraud if the practitioner really believes what he is doing really works. This makes him an idiot, not a fraud. There may be liabilty in tort for this sort of thing, but not criminal liability.This is a very good point. However, it would be worthwhile to explore whether there is sufficient flexibility in the applicable statute or case law to argue that recklessness satisfies the scienter requirement, as you sometimes see with securities fraud cases. This would probably be a tough row to hoe, as I expect gross negligence wouldn't cut it. However, if the Reiki practitioner willfully refrained from investigating the veracity of his own claims, or turned a blind eye to contrary facts available to him, there might be a chance of persuading a jury that his representation was not honestly made even if he did not have actual knowledge of its falsity.

Tony

2nd December 2003, 09:06 AM

Take your fascism somewhere else.

Tmy

2nd December 2003, 09:16 AM

If the person feels better after these sessions, (even if its all in their head) can you say that its obvious bunk?

Prosecutor1

2nd December 2003, 09:17 AM

TMY makes a great point about Christian faith healers. I would love to go after them, but I wouldn't get very far. I'm not the elected official here - my boss is, and I can bet that the minute people started worrying about the slippery slope to their own irrational beliefs, any prosecution would get nixed.

And it's not about fascism. It's about con artists scamming people out of their money.

Which brings up another problem. When I discussed this with a few people, a prevailing opinion was: If people are stupid enough to believe in that crap, they deserve to be scammed. While I disagree, jurors might think the same thing.

Drooper

2nd December 2003, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Since the falsity of the advertising claim is an essential element of the offense, I can't believe that in any U.S. jurisdiction the initial burden would be on the defendant in this case. As unfair as that seems in this particular case, to do otherwise would unacceptably shift the burden of proof away from the prosecution. Defendants don't have to make a prima facie establishing their compliance with the law.

Great.

I am going to market my new wonder pills. They increase life expectancy by 20% in 80% of cases.

Are you telling me that someone has to prove me wrong before I can be forced to withdraw such claims?

Tony

2nd December 2003, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Prosecutor1

And it's not about fascism. It's about con artists scamming people out of their money.

It may not be about fascism, but that's what it is. You want to tyrannically force your bigoted views on other people. If some nut-ball christian or muslim was doing the same thing, Im sure you would object.

Tmy

2nd December 2003, 09:26 AM

So you admit that the prosecution is tainted by religious bias. Yknow there are religions that do believe in reincarnation. Where do you draw the line? Do you go after those magnetic bracelet makers? Does accupuncture make your hit list?

Have you gotten complaints about from the counselors clients? If not I say leave him be.

Suddenly

2nd December 2003, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Drooper

Great.

I am going to market my new wonder pills. They increase life expectancy by 20% in 80% of cases.

Are you telling me that someone has to prove me wrong before I can be forced to withdraw such claims?

We are talking about crime. Someone has to prove you are wrong, and that you knew you were wrong beyond a reasonable doubt before you can be convicted of a crime.

Prosecutor1

2nd December 2003, 09:39 AM

These comments are exactly why I asked the question. I knew there would be a wide reaction to this idea. I think I should at least receive come credit for asking for feedback on this.

To address the point of religious bias, I will admit that I don't view Reiki or any other stupid belief to be any different than mainstream Christian healers or Muslim belief. Personally, I don't differentiate between ANY supernatural claim, mainstream or fringe. In this case, however, MY belief would be much less relevant than the PUBLIC belief in the difference between irrational claims of the supernatural. Just because I don't agree with the perception doesn't mean the perception is irrelevant. After all, my powers are limited by the jury of peers I would present the case to. That's the whole idea.

My point was to anticipate these arguments and then ask if it would be worth it to go after these people. Apparently the answer is no. It seems there are too many false distinctions out there between pseudo-scientific or paranormal claims and those beliefs that the general public still clings to, such as the power of prayer, angels, demons, etc...

Randi has expressed to me his frustration with some other people in my profession (mainly attorneys general) who "don't have the guts" to go after these people. He seems to view it as cowardice and I can certainly see why. It seems skeptic organizations should then focus on changing minds and not laws. As a skeptic and a prosecutor, however, I find it frustrating to have the position to expose some of these frauds in court but yet face the reality of the common belief in the supernatural that is pervasive in our society.

Drooper

2nd December 2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly

We are talking about crime. Someone has to prove you are wrong, and that you knew you were wrong beyond a reasonable doubt before you can be convicted of a crime.

I thought we were talking about a number of things. At one level a criminal prosecution, at another an action under trades description.

I don't know what it is like in the US, but you need to be able to prove that what you sell can do what you say it can. I also know that there are consumer laws that require a vendor to ensure that his goods are safe. In both instances the onus of proof is on the "defendant", or vendor.

Skeptic

2nd December 2003, 10:26 AM

Deceptive Business Practices.

You mean, like those practitioners promising a non-existant eternal life after death a non-existant heaven next to a non-existant God... in return for tithes, "voluntary" contributions, volunteer work, the occassional coerced sex with the practitioner, and other things of that nature, here on earth?

If you want to go after "deceptive business practices", THAT is the one to go after, surely. But I have to say, I don't see how you could succesfully sue reiki or homoepathy people any more than you could sue organized religion just because they're selling empty promises. Freedom of religion and belief--even of DUMB religions and beliefs--protects such enterprises (and rightly so). The loss of personal choice and freedom in order to "force" people not to believe or practice nonsense is opressive, dangerous, and inefficient.

It is opressive, because people have the right to believe what they want about metaphysical issues. It is dangerous, since once it is allowed to use force (or the law) to make people stop believing or practicing nonsense, the same force would just as quickly stop people from believing or practicing anything those in power don't like. ("First they came for the Reiki practitioners, and I haven't spoken up because I did not believe this nonsense. Then..."). It is inefficient, since there is nothing people would not do--including dying nailed upside down to a cross, or burned at the stake--to protect their belief in nonsense. As Bertrand Russell said, "most people would rather die than think. In fact, they do."

No, the way to stop this nonsense is not to prosecute it, but to ARGUE AGAINST IT. Quite apart from everything else, it would only make the practitioners into undeserved martyrs.

Drooper

2nd December 2003, 10:41 AM

Religion is hardly an act of trading is it ?

I can walk into a church, attend mass and not stump up a penny.

On the other hand, someone advertising a service which can only be obtained in exchange for payment is a different matter altogether.

Tmy

2nd December 2003, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Prosecutor1
After all, my powers are limited by the jury of peers I would present the case to. That's the whole idea.

As a skeptic and a prosecutor, however, I find it frustrating to have the position to expose some of these frauds in court but yet face the reality of the common belief in the supernatural that is pervasive in our society.

First off I think you started a great thread.

OK. Your powers are much more than presenting a case. If you go after this guy he will be forced to defend himself (ie legal costs). A jury will most likely let him slide, but in the end he could be bankrupted by the process. I dont find that as just.

Id like a little more info. Have his "customers" complained. If not, then who are you protecting?

Its funny how the govt can go after the psychic hotline lady but let Benny Finn go on..........wh tax free status to boot.

Prosecutor1

2nd December 2003, 11:24 AM

If Benny Hinn held one of his healing crusades in my jurisdiction and before each person was "healed" he told them he'd have to cough up $1000, I'd prosecute him. I'd become one of the most hated men around, but I'd be right to do it.

Benny Hinn doesn't do that, though. A person can go (just as Drooper said above) to one os his meetings, not pay a dime (they're all free from what I understand), get "healed" and leave.

But is some Reiki practitioner is charging people $50 a pop to wave their arms over somebody - I don't know - it sounds like a crime to me. Many of the posts have made the distiction between a civil case and a criminal case. Most of the govt. oversight agencies work under civil guidelines, that is, they can fine people for fraudulent business practices - not jail them.

One thing Randi mention when I spoke with him was his desire to have all psychics and others like them required to be licensed. his rationale was that they would then have standard guidelines (a test of their abilities) that they would have to satisfy to be licensed. Of course, the result of that would be that none would be licensed.

Whether someone complains or not is not, to me, the point. We often prosecute domestic assaults where the victims hate us for prosecuting their abuser. Elder abuse is often done with the full consent and knowledge of the person being taken advantage of. Just because people consent to be a victim doesn't always negate the fact that they are being victimized. And no, there haven't been any complaints. I had just been giving this topic some thought of late.

And what about the person who gets convinced that their cancer or heart disease can be cured by supernatural means because "doctors are in the business of keeping them sick"? This is a common refrain among the practitioners of pseudoscientific medicine. When a person is physically harmed by another, shouldn't we call it assault?

We recently had a case in my state where a man from Florida had called up random women and through amazing pursuasion, convinced them that he was a doctor and ALSO convinced them to operate on their own genitalia. Several women were severely injured. Now, do we dismiss this because they were stupid? This man was convicted of assault and that conviction was appealed and upheld. If someone does the same thing but instead of pretending to be a doctor, they pretend to be a psychic, shouldn't that be treated the same?

Luke T.

2nd December 2003, 11:40 AM

I've never known a prosecutor to have so many spelling mistakes.

Doubt

2nd December 2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.
I've never known a prosecutor to have so many spelling mistakes.

I think we should avoid ganging up on newbies, but something here does not smell right. A few red flags are going off in my head. I did not catch the spelling errors, but then I am no better.

Grammar and punctuation do not suggest someone who writes much.

Initial identification in the first paragraph of the first post looks oddly familiar.

Why would a prosecutor be asking this forum for opinions? Although we have a few lawyers here, they never ask us for advice and they should not. We (collectively) don’t know the law as well as the lawyers do. An assistant DA would probably ask their boss, the elected DA, for policy rather than us.

Time to e-mail Randi????

Cleopatra

2nd December 2003, 12:19 PM

I was ready to hit the reply button and explain why and how in Greece we prosecute psychics with a relative success but... ahem.

Suddenly

2nd December 2003, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Doubt

I think we should avoid ganging up on newbies, but something here does not smell right. A few red flags are going off in my head. I did not catch the spelling errors, but then I am no better.

Grammar and punctuation do not suggest someone who writes much.

Initial identification in the first paragraph of the first post looks oddly familiar.

Why would a prosecutor be asking this forum for opinions? Although we have a few lawyers here, they never ask us for advice and they should not. We (collectively) don’t know the law as well as the lawyers do. An assistant DA would probably ask their boss, the elected DA, for policy rather than us.

Time to e-mail Randi????

I've got my suspicions as well, although as far as grammar and spelling go (especially grammar) the first person to throw stones shouldn't be I. (errors intentional ... maybe)

If this guy's name turns out to be Phil Christian... (Not that this is Yahweh, but I'm getting a similar vibe)

I could very well be partially or totally wrong here, one of my best friends, also a lawyer, sends me e-mails that are almost painful with spelling errors and such. In the era of spell and grammar checkers us boarderline illiterates do real good until we ain't got no spell checker, and then, yikes.

I'm just wondering if the problems he identifies are really the ones I'd worry about. I'm not sold on his legal analysis, although it could be that he is just new, or that I'm an idiot. Very possible.

hal bidlack

2nd December 2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.
I've never known a prosecutor to have so many spelling mistakes.

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#cc6666 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#cc6666><fontface="Arial,

Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>edited by hal:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=1>This post has been reported (twice) for name calling and thread highjacking. I find this post is not in violation of the rules.
</font></td></tr></table>

Doubt

2nd December 2003, 12:51 PM

Maybe the thread reporter(s) should tell us where anyone has been called a name.

Also I don’t think anyone here is interested in hijacking this thread yet. But the initial content looks fishy. Who is trying to silence us on this and why? If they are still unhappy,I would be willing to start another thread, but not until they tell us what they think we are doing wrong.

In the mean time, Prosecutor1 could explain why we are being asked if it is worthwhile to pursue a case of this sort.

BTW: Nice box hal.

:D

Luke T.

2nd December 2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Doubt
Maybe the thread reporter(s) should tell us where anyone has been called a name.

Also I don’t think anyone here is interested in hijacking this thread yet. But the initial content looks fishy. Who is trying to silence us on this and why? If they are still unhappy,I would be willing to start another thread, but not until they tell us what they think we are doing wrong.

In the mean time, Prosecutor1 could explain why we are being asked if it is worthwhile to pursue a case of this sort.

BTW: Nice box hal.

:D

My post was one of pure skepticism, which means I had my doubts as to Prosecutor1's bona fides, but that I also could be totally wrong. And so I phrased it as I did to reflect that approach.

I quickly received a PM from Prosecutor1 expressing a degree of anger over my post. I responded that while I heartily agree that psychic healers are a plague on our society, he/she did not seem to possess the writing skills I would expect in a lawyer. I also said that we have a lawyer or two who are members here who might drop by and I hoped he/she was ready for that.

So I can make an educated guess who reported my post......

If I am wrong, I will not hesitate to say so. I have gotten used to being wrong and apologizing. But my batting average has been pretty good on this forum so far.

edited to add: I also stated in my response PM that we have had a rash of posers on this forum. So we are a little skeptical. :D

Tmy

2nd December 2003, 01:45 PM

I dont see how Regression therapy is danegerous. (From your first post), and even the engergy healing so long as they are not told that its the be all end all screw kemo. The medical community does not know all, even if theythink they do.

People say chuch is difft cause you CAN go ge things for free. (yeah try getting a baptism done wh/o greasing palms.) Butthese people are not forced to go to the regression guy. How can you prove the regression guy is scamming if hes really thinks he can do it.

Wouldnt a prosecuters time be better spent in a # of other areas. Maybe Pros1 is a fake. His case sounds more like state attorney general jurisdiction anyway.

Michael Redman

2nd December 2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Drooper

Great.

I am going to market my new wonder pills. They increase life expectancy by 20% in 80% of cases.

Are you telling me that someone has to prove me wrong before I can be forced to withdraw such claims? Your example hits on a variance from the general rule. In the US, drug sellers have to prove their claims to the FDA before they can sell drugs.

In general, however, people who sell consumer products do not need to establish the veracity of their claims before they enter the marketplace.

This is why we are having so many problems with "dietary supplements". The new rule says that they are not drugs, so the sellers do not have to get prior approval from the FDA, even though the claims they make are clearly medicinal in nature. I have heard recently, however, that Congress is getting fed up with the situation, and is working on closing the loophole.

I agree that criminal prosecution would be the most difficult means of attacking these false claims, although the most effective if successful. Civil litigation would be much easier, but economically unfeasible in almost all cases due to the nature of the defendants. In my opinion, this is a case where regulation and consumer protection agency action are the best way to deal with the problem.

(Who reports a thread for threadjacking, anyway? What's that all about?)

Hexxenhammer

2nd December 2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
I dont see how Regression therapy is danegerous. (From your first post), and even the engergy healing so long as they are not told that its the be all end all screw kemo. The medical community does not know all, even if theythink they do.

People say chuch is difft cause you CAN go ge things for free. (yeah try getting a baptism done wh/o greasing palms.) Butthese people are not forced to go to the regression guy. How can you prove the regression guy is scamming if hes really thinks he can do it.Regression therapy is dangerous. It's sent many people to jail based on "recovered" memories. I can't remember the name of the guy now, but there was a case in Washington or Oregon where a girl supposedly recovered memeories of satanic abuse at the hands of her very religious father and his cult. He didn't remember any of it but since he didn't think his daughter would lie about it, me underwent regression too where he "recovered" memories of being the high priest of a satanic cult who had apparently killed many people, babies, yadda, yadda... The guy went to jail and later decided the memories weren't real. Too late buddy.

Tmy

2nd December 2003, 02:08 PM

Its PAST LIFE regression. So if you did naughty things its OK casue the statue of limitations is definately over when your past life ended.

Imagine where we can go with this. Last year. I went to the blessing of the bikes and paid money to have my bike blessed by the preist. Do we have the preist arrested forthat scam? Oh yeah, I was rear ended on my bike so I guess the blessing didnt take. Should I sue the preist? Sue the church casue God breached our contract. (I think that was an Alley McBeal episode)

Prosecutor1

2nd December 2003, 02:34 PM

I must admit that I had no idea this discussion would turn on whether or not I was an actual prosecutor. I'm not sure what I could do to convince you other than give you my name and juridiction which I won't do.

I'm sorry I tried to ask lay people their opinions on what cases should be prosecuted. I would have hoped that you all might recognize that every case I charge has the potential to be brought in front of twelve citizens.

Yes, I have many other things to do. I had some time today and I thought this would be an interesting intellectual exercise. Instead, I got made fun of for spelling and grammar errors and doubt was expressed at my credentials. I can only assure you that the two men I've sent to prison for the rest of their lives know I'm a prosecutor as well as the many, many others sent their for finite periods.

I'll not post on this site again. The sad part is that I spoke to Randi about this subject last Friday and emailed him today to tell him of the (at first) lively discussion of the topic. For those of you talking about "reporting to Randi" or whatever, rest assured that he knows exactly who I am and where I am and what I do.

This was a huge waste of time.

Suddenly

2nd December 2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Prosecutor1
I must admit that I had no idea this discussion would turn on whether or not I was an actual prosecutor. I'm not sure what I could do to convince you other than give you my name and juridiction which I won't do.

I'm sorry I tried to ask lay people their opinions on what cases should be prosecuted. I would have hoped that you all might recognize that every case I charge has the potential to be brought in front of twelve citizens.

Yes, I have many other things to do. I had some time today and I thought this would be an interesting intellectual exercise. Instead, I got made fun of for spelling and grammar errors and doubt was expressed at my credentials. I can only assure you that the two men I've sent to prison for the rest of their lives know I'm a prosecutor as well as the many, many others sent their for finite periods.

I'll not post on this site again. The sad part is that I spoke to Randi about this subject last Friday and emailed him today to tell him of the (at first) lively discussion of the topic. For those of you talking about "reporting to Randi" or whatever, rest assured that he knows exactly who I am and where I am and what I do.

This was a huge waste of time.

I don't really see where this discussion "turned" on your possibly not being a lawyer. I have serious doubts that you are, but I would treat you at face value, that is as you were what you say you are, until any such time that you said you were not a lawyer. It really doesn't matter a whole lot either way.

In fact, the discussion had played out when the speculation arose. This response does nothing but heighten my skepticism of your credentials. Not to mention the massive irony that you are disgusted that we do not accept on faith that you are what you say you are. Just chest thumping and a threat to leave. Somehow I'd expect better from a lawyer, as odd as that statement may sound to many here.

If the above is an example of your attitude, I for one am not feeling a sense of loss regarding your departure.

Luke T.

2nd December 2003, 03:03 PM

Prosecutor1, if you are a real prosecutor I hope you aren't as sensitive in the courtroom as you have been here.

But as I mentioned, we have been plagued by posers. And they all seem to have a curious inability to spell or put a proper sentence together.

Mind you, we have many bad spellers here who are not posers. And I doubt my grammar is anything to write home about.

We just view newcomers in the light of a recent spam attack by a particularly nasty low-life who attempted to approach from many angles. And just to be clear, I am not saying you are him.

Aside from the spelling thing, your posts just don't ring with the same tone as the other lawyers who post and have posted here. Sorry.

If you are a prosecutor, I admire your desire to try an idea out on citizen-jurors. The jury system is one of the greatest bulwarks against tyranny that exists.

WildCat

2nd December 2003, 03:10 PM

I find it odd that a prosecutor would be so thin-skinned as to report Lukes' suspicions to a moderator right off the bat, especially as a newbie.

I was called a matriarchal totalitarian after my first post here and didn't report it. :D

bignickel

2nd December 2003, 07:16 PM

Ouch! Sorry to see you go!

Rest assured, we'll all be alot more trusting of those who follow you. I'm sure that we'll treat judges who drop by (asking our opinion of what scientific evidence to include or toss out) with the utmost respect that they deserve.

Wierd, tho, when we me and Randi went water-sking last Friday, he didn't mention you. Then again, that might have been because of the saucer passing overhead with it's mind control beams... :)

Michael Redman

3rd December 2003, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly
Just chest thumping and a threat to leave. Somehow I'd expect better from a lawyer . . . Don't forget, we're talking about a prosecutor here, not just any lawyer. I've certainly observed similar behavior by prosecutors plenty of times in the past.

Tmy

3rd December 2003, 06:12 AM

Suddenly

3rd December 2003, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Don't forget, we're talking about a prosecutor here, not just any lawyer. I've certainly observed similar behavior by prosecutors plenty of times in the past.

True, true.

There are serious dingbats on both sides of the criminal justice system. We have brainless power mad prosecutors that have a Bush-like fixation on punishing the evildoers, and brainless defense attorneys hostile to the concept of personal responsibility and who believe that cops are part of a racial-economic conspiracy against poor and minorities.

These people are hilarious until you realize how important their jobs are. Then it gets scary.

Skeptic

3rd December 2003, 06:32 AM

Religion is hardly an act of trading is it ?

Officially, no. In practice, however, certainly: your money for salvation. The Catholic church used to sell "indulgences" to get your (or relative's) soul out of purgatory. Televangelists keep asking for "voluntary donations" in return for prayer. Tithing, etc., is VERY strongly encouraged in many churches.

This is no different than psychics, etc. "He didn't ask for any money, so it can't be a scam!" is one of the oldest tricks these people use. Most psychics always depended on the "kindness of strangers", as Randi said somewhere--and made a lot MORE that way than they possibly could by directly asking for payment.

Religion--like psychics--are like those "free real estate seminar!" scams you see on late-night informercials. Just because it's technically "free", doesn't mean it isn't a scam--and it won't really be free in most cases, at least if they can help it.

Michael Redman

3rd December 2003, 07:20 AM

I don't know, Skeptic. I think you're painting religion and crooks a little too broadly. After all, JREF encourages donations pretty actively. It need donations to survive. Does that make this forum some sort of commercial trade? I say it does not. There's a clear and important distinction to me. I don't think today's mainstream churches "sell" salvation anymore than JREF "sells" critical understanding.

If JREF wouldn't give you their information without a donation, as the psychics and homeopaths, then I would expect that they would be held to account for their claims. On the other hand, if they, like churches, just made silly claims and asked for money, I see it as much less important that they be held to the veracity of their claims, as the audience is free to partake without cost, and only give if compelled from within. At some point, the fool has to take responsibility for being parted from his money.

(Well, that was poorly put, but I hope you get my meaning.)

Skeptic

3rd December 2003, 07:46 AM

I don't know, Skeptic. I think you're painting religion and crooks a little too broadly. After all, JREF encourages donations pretty actively. It need donations to survive. Does that make this forum some sort of commercial trade?

You have a point. Perhaps the real distinction I was trying to make is in whether there is misrepresentation or fraud involved.

JREF isn't a business. But it has one thing in common with honest businesses--it makes no misrepresentations. It openly says what it will use the money it solicits for, and uses it for just those purposes (unless Randi has a stash of laundered money in a caribbian island we don't know about).

Curches, like psychics, make false claims to get their money. Perhaps a church isn't a business officially--but it still misrepresents what it does.

Suddenly

3rd December 2003, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
[B]

Curches, like psychics, make false claims to get their money. Perhaps a church isn't a business officially--but it still misrepresents what it does.

Maybe some do. Back when I was a good God fearin' American instead of an evil athiest, I belonged to a church. Every penny of donations were accounted for, much of it went to the poor, the rest to building maintanence and paying the pastor. The books weren't a big secret. It may upon reflection seem that the whole deal is based on things based on no scientific evidence, but the money went to the poor and providing a place to participate in a common and voluntary activity. No threats of hell or promises of heaven were used to get money, it was generally just seen as the right thing to do, so the pastor didn't starve, the church didn't crumble and the poor would get some food and clothes out of the deal.

I don't claim this is a universal thing, but it doesn't smack of fraud or misrepresentation just because the central activity revolves around things supported by no evidence.

Ralph

3rd December 2003, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly

Maybe some do. Back when I was a good God fearin' American instead of an evil athiest, I belonged to a church. Every penny of donations were accounted for, much of it went to the poor, the rest to building maintanence and paying the pastor. The books weren't a big secret. It may upon reflection seem that the whole deal is based on things based on no scientific evidence, but the money went to the poor and providing a place to participate in a common and voluntary activity. No threats of hell or promises of heaven were used to get money, it was generally just seen as the right thing to do, so the pastor didn't starve, the church didn't crumble and the poor would get some food and clothes out of the deal.

I don't claim this is a universal thing, but it doesn't smack of fraud or misrepresentation just because the central activity revolves around things supported by no evidence.

Not sure if Prosecutor is still here or not but I wonder....from a legal point of view....could a practitioner of something like homeopathy be held to the same standards as a health care practitioner.

When you talk about medication errors.....everybody thinks "overdose". Underdosing though can be just as bad under some circumstances.

I work as a hospital pharmacist in a teaching hospital. There's lots of med-students and residents and mistakes are fairly common. UNDERDOSING someone with a serious infection for example could be fatal under the right circumstances.

One of the best "saves" I ever made involved picking up on a decimal point error made by a technician who'd prepared an antibiotic solution for a child. The decimal point error resulted in a solution with only one-tenth the concentration it should of had. It was in a manner of speaking....a homeopathic solution. Weakened to the point of uselessness.

Most hospitals make up a 24 hour supply at a time so the end result would have been the patient had a weak (useless) solution going into them for a whole day. If the infection is something serious like meningitis or septicemia..........it would probably be a fatal.

I'm pretty sure I would've been sued and lost had something like that occurred.

My negligence would have caused harm by allowing not a toxic......but a useless substance to be administered to an individual in place of something that could have saved the childs life.

Could a similar analogy be used in court against a homeopath that administered what amounts to water.......and allowing a patient to suffer harm that could have been prevented had proper treatment been recieved?

Michael Redman

4th December 2003, 12:10 PM

Ralph, that's an interesting question. My guess would be no.

If a doctor prescribes a dose that by community standards is the correct dose, but is actually far less than the ideal dose, that doctor is not doing anything wrong, although acting differently would have been better for the patient. The doctor isn't expected to know the truth, but only the best knowledge currently available to the medical community.

By that standard, a homeopath that prescribes the "correct" dose of voodoo water is not varying from the standard. He's doing his job correctly, as he knows it. Unless you attack homeopathy itself, a homeopath acting as trained is not committing malpractice.

A different approach that might be more successful would be to impose the standards of the legitimate medical community, and claim that homeopathy itself is a deviation from the community standard for medical practitioners.

Ralph

4th December 2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Ralph, that's an interesting question. My guess would be no.

If a doctor prescribes a dose that by community standards is the correct dose, but is actually far less than the ideal dose, that doctor is not doing anything wrong, although acting differently would have been better for the patient. The doctor isn't expected to know the truth, but only the best knowledge currently available to the medical community.

By that standard, a homeopath that prescribes the "correct" dose of voodoo water is not varying from the standard. He's doing his job correctly, as he knows it. Unless you attack homeopathy itself, a homeopath acting as trained is not committing malpractice.

A different approach that might be more successful would be to impose the standards of the legitimate medical community, and claim that homeopathy itself is a deviation from the community standard for medical practitioners.

I'm afraid you're probably right. If you had a child die after his parents had taken him to a witchdoctor for treatment.....you could probably file legal charges against the witchdoctor. (at least in the US).

Unfortunately too many people have raised homeopathy to a higher level than witchcraft even though the end result is about the same.

I think a lot would depend on the attitudes of the judge & jury.
I'd like to think that a judge would see it for what it was........but that's probably just wishfull thinking.

Given some of the decisions you see jurys make these days......I think the homeopath's going to beat the rap...............

Nova Land

4th December 2003, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly

... Back when I was a good God fearin' American instead of an evil atheist, I belonged to a church. Every penny of donations were accounted for, much of it went to the poor, the rest to building maintenance and paying the pastor. The books weren't a big secret. It may upon reflection seem that the whole deal is based on things based on no scientific evidence, but the money went to the poor and providing a place to participate in a common and voluntary activity. No threats of hell or promises of heaven were used to get money ... I'll second that.

The religion I belong to deliberately does not pass a collection plate after the worship service, in order to help assure that donations are voluntary rather than coerced.

Occasionally (for a special cause) there will be a donation jar on a table, along with literature for that cause, and people who choose to may browse the literature and, if they feel so moved, may discreetly make a contribution. Otherwise, people wishing to contribute need to take it upon themselves to get the money in -- either by mailing it in, or seeking out the treasurer in person.

As with Suddenly's experience, the books are open, as are the meetings at which decisions are made as to how to spend money. Any attender is welcome to participate in these.

Also as with Suddenly, the money goes either to groups, causes and projects we support (e.g. to food kitchens, homeless shelters, domestic violence shelters, anti-war groups, anti-racism groups, civil liberties groups, separation of church and state groups, etc.) or for maintenance of the meeting (e.g. electricity, heating, and other bills associated with maintaining a meetinghouse). The various people who take on special roles -- clerk, recording clerk (i.e. secretary), treasurer, the various committee clerks, etc., do not receive a salary. No one is making a profit.

There is no threat of hell if I do not choose to contribute, nor promise of heaven if I do. In point of fact, I virtually never contribute money. No one has ever complained, looked at me funny, or made me feel in the least uncomfortable about this.

One thing I resent about many scam artists -- religious and non-religious -- is that they often prey on those least able to afford being cheated, such as the poor, the elderly, those with serious medical problems (and medical bills!) I have reasonable confidence that, if anyone in the meeting I attend were donating significant amounts in spite of their own personal needs, the money would be discreetly returned in a friendly and appreciative way. (I would have nothing to do with any group of which I suspected otherwise.)

"Psychics" and "alternative health practitioners" who knowingly take money for worthless goods and services are crooks and should be treated as such. The same goes for people who knowingly scam people out of their money under the pretense of religion. (A certain faith healer whom Randi exposed, who used a radio transmitter and pretended to be getting messages from god, is a good example.)

The key word, to me, is knowingly.

It seems reasonably clear to me that the people who run "psychic" phone lines know that the people they are hiring are not psychic. They are out to make money, and deliberately using deception to do it. What they're doing may (or may not) be technically legal, but to my mind they are crooks. I would welcome seeing a prosecutor take them to court.

In contrast, many astrologers, tarot card readers, iridologists, etc., are (I believe) sincere in their belief in what they are doing. They are mistaken, but they are not deliberate deceivers and crooks, and treating them as such is probably counter-productive.

The same goes for religion. I do not believe that religious people or practices should be exempt from scrutiny. Claims of religion should not be a defense against prosecution for deliberate swindles and scams. But let's not over-generalize that because some religious programs are con games that all religious programs are con games.

I can see a clear distinction between a person who pretends to have supernatural powers in order to get people's money (Peter Popov) and a person who espouses values and encourages people to live up to those values (Martin Luther King). Even when people espouse religious values that I strongly disagree with (James Dobson, for example), I am inclined to think that they are mistaken, not that they are crooks.

Going after misguided, deluded, but sincere people with criminal charges (or heavy-duty civil suits) is not going to win much sympathy or support from the public at large. But exposing the deliberate liars and money-leeches is something that many people -- including those who are sympathetic to "New Age" practices, "alternative health" methods, the paranormal, and religion -- will understand and support.

Yes, it is difficult proving deliberate fraud. But if something is true, it should be possible to demonstrate it in a way that reasonable people can see. That, to me, is a cornerstone of rational thinking. We may fail in a particular effort to demonstrate truth, but it's still worth making the effort.

Matabiri

4th December 2003, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Nova Land
There is no threat of hell if I do not choose to contribute, nor promise of heaven if I do. In point of fact, I virtually never contribute money. No one has ever complained, looked at me funny, or made me feel in the least uncomfortable about this.

One thing I resent about many scam artists -- religious and non-religious -- is that they often prey on those least able to afford being cheated, such as the poor, the elderly, those with serious medical problems (and medical bills!) I have reasonable confidence that, if anyone in the meeting I attend were donating significant amounts in spite of their own personal needs, the money would be discreetly returned in a friendly and appreciative way. (I would have nothing to do with any group of which I suspected otherwise.)

...

"Psychics" and "alternative health practitioners" who knowingly take money for worthless goods and services are crooks and should be treated as such. The same goes for people who knowingly scam people out of their money under the pretense of religion. (A certain faith healer whom Randi exposed, who used a radio transmitter and pretended to be getting messages from god, is a good example.)

(Mildly)
Isn't one of the general giveaways of quackery that whatever-it's-selling/giving away is the only solution to your problems? And the church would come under that description - and the JREF wouldn't.

However, psychics; tarot readers; etc. also wouldn't...

Ho hum.

Nova Land

4th December 2003, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Matabiri

(Mildly)
Isn't one of the general giveaways of quackery that whatever-it's-selling/giving away is the only solution to your problems? And the church would come under that description - and the JREF wouldn't.

However, psychics; tarot readers; etc. also wouldn't...I'm sorry, I don't follow what you're saying.

It sounds like you're saying that churches say they provide the only answer to people's problems, and that JREF, psychics, tarot readers, etc. don't. I'm pretty sure I'm misreading, misunderstanding, or misinterpreting something.

Let me respond to the part I think I understand. It sounds like you are saying that churches (religions) claim they are the only answer to people's problems (and that this is an indication of quackery).

I agree with the idea that any group which claims it has the only solution to all of people's problems is probably way off-base. I also agree that many religions do make such claims, some of them to an extreme extent.

However, not all religions make such claims. Mine doesn't, and it is not alone in this.

I find my religious beliefs helpful to me in my life. I also know that many things which work for me do not work for others. That's life, and I am quite comfortable with it. I enjoy being able to meet and worship with others who feel as I do, and I enjoy that those who feel differently are able to worship (or refrain from worshipping) in the ways that feel most comfortable to them.

The fact that some religions teach that theirs is the only way does not mean all religions teach this.

Cleopatra

5th December 2003, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by Ralph

I'm afraid you're probably right. If you had a child die after his parents had taken him to a witchdoctor for treatment.....you could probably file legal charges against the witchdoctor. (at least in the US).

In Greece the parents would be in trouble too.

Unfortunately too many people have raised homeopathy to a higher level than witchcraft even though the end result is about the same.

El Greco has the knowledge to correct me if I am wrong but in Greece 9 to 10 homeopathic doctors are... actually doctors who practice homeopathy as a complementary medicine.

I think a lot would depend on the attitudes of the judge & jury.
I'd like to think that a judge would see it for what it was........but that's probably just wishfull thinking.

Given some of the decisions you see jurys make these days......I think the homeopath's going to beat the rap...............

It all depends on the way Law describes a profession and its obligation towards the general public.

For example in Greece psychics and astrologers are considered professional counselors. They are paying taxes because they are getting paid in order to provide their services and this makes our job easier. We encourage their clients to sue them for failing to provide the services they promised. It doesn't always work because some of them are really smart as to what they promise.

Anothe big issue that we can show some successes is the issue of psychics that testify in trials especially in cases of murder that I happen to be aware of. Our association has declared a war against those people. Everytime a verdict doesn't agree with their testimony we sue them for purjury according the provisions of the Greek Law. We don't have impressive results yet in terms of percentages but that way we have forced them to think twice before offering to testify in court.