Should claiming to be a genuine psychic be a criminal offence?

[Open Mind]

Drum roll .......

[maddafinga]

I think that many of them really deserve to be prosecuted for what they do. I can't help but feel like many of them are just deluded and misguided however and don't deserve punishment. There are a frighting number though that really do just prey on people for thier own financial gain.

Should car salesmen be jailed for the same thing I wonder? Maybe my gut reaction is way out of line. Maybe I'll need to think about this a bit more. Strange how even pretty simple questions get more difficult when you look into them.

[Eleatic Stranger]

I think they should be prosecuted only if they are not in fact genuine psychics.

I figure that ought to weed out the few bad apples among the crowd.

[Beleth]

Psychics should need to tested and certified by the government, just like building contractors.

[Mercutio]

Perhaps they should be licensed. Just as we must demonstrate that we can operate a motor vehicle before we are licensed to do so, they should be able to pass a simple test before they can be licensed to collect money for services rendered as a psychic. That way, it need not be an offense to claim to be a genuine psychic...it would merely to be an offense to do so without proper credentials.

A modest fee for each application seems reasonable (it could even be refundable upon successful completion, or after a year of practice)...and stiff fines for unlicensed "psychics"...

[Ratman_tf]

Hm. Claiming to be a genuine psychic?

I can claim to be a genuine astronaut, and it's not against the law. (I'm not an astronaut, BTW)

I do think that someone recieving money for psychic services should be able to provide evidence that they are genuine psychics. Good evidence, not just a couple of cold reads and a hot read.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Drum roll .......

Why? Anybody should be able to claim anything. Claim you are a geniune banana for all I care. Just don't base your career off it if you are not one.

[maddafinga]

Originally posted by c4ts
Why? Anybody should be able to claim anything. Claim you are a geniune banana for all I care. Just don't base your career off it if you are not one.

Just claiming that is not a problem at all. Where I see the problem is when people who claim to be psychic perform "healings" and give advice that can really harm a person or their life. That is when they should be prosecuted. I also feel like members of the church of christ scientist should be prosecuted for allowing people to get very sick and or die.

[Kopji]

If everyday people learned how to choose between ideas by applying a simple 'baloney kit'... to look beyond the desire for these things to be true... and learned to choose - there would be no place for the 'psychics'.


"There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in very country the surest basis of public happiness."

George Washington to congress, 1790

(as quoted in Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark)

[El Greco]

I voted 'yes' since I assume that this answer implies that they charge money for their 'services'. I don't care whether their total income is below average or not.

Of course this is a very complex problem that involves not only the con-artists of the paranormal but also lots of simpler, more mundane crooks. Claiming to be a dietician or a psychotherapist without being one is similar.

I also have to confess my little dream: That many years from now, claiming to be a priest will also be a criminal offense ;)

[UserGoogol]

Psychics who are frauds, sure. But I think some psychics are merely stupid, and I'm not sure what the answer is for them.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by UserGoogol
Psychics who are frauds, sure. But I think some psychics are merely stupid, and I'm not sure what the answer is for them.

They should be subject to the same laws as everyone else - if you charge people money to provide a service you can't provide, that's fraud.

[Oleron]

Perhaps we should have a legal equivalent of the 'ducking stool'.

Make it ILLEGAL to be a GENUINE psychic. Then round up all the psychics and ask them if they are genuine. They will answer no to avoid a conviction.

Problem solved. :p

[JLam]

It seems that psychics have it pretty good.

If you're practicing medicine, there's a way for people to check your credentials to make sure that you are who you say you are, and attended the medical school you say you did. There's also very strict oversight of the medical profession in general. This gives the general public at least some sense of protection.

The public is not afforded these same protections when it comes to psychics. It's hard to regulate an industry where the truth is subjective and open to interpretation. And as for laws...can you imagine ANY state legislature coming up with a Randi-type protocol to determine the authenticity of a psychic? Didn't think so.

The ones who should be taken into the woods and beaten are the ones who tell people that they're cursed and can only be cured by wiring money to a Swiss bank account.

Makes me sick.

[Pixel42]

No-one who can read and who knows where the nearest library is has any excuse for believing in psychics, astrology, homeopathy or any other such tosh. People give these con-artists their money of their own free will, no one is forcing them to do so.

Wilful ignorance is not a crime (except in Ankh-Morpork, where you can be prosecuted under the Being Bloody Stupid Act of 1571 ;) ), but it is a betrayal of the human spirit and deserves to be punished.

I have no problem with the people who make their living out of exploiting other peoples' wilful ignorance. They are providing a valuable public service by punishing such idiots by relieving them of their money. :p

[The Don]

IMO, anyone charging for their services should have to demonstrate that they are in fact a genuine psychic. If they are not, then they are obliged to say before any reading "I have been independently tested by the National Psychic Evaluation Board and have been found to have no exceptional powers". Because their clients have been adequately warned they should be in a position to judge whether or not to proceed with the reading. Under this regimen the following WOULD be an offence under trading standards (and eventually criminal law if a repeat offender)

- Operating for cash without having undergone an evaluation
- Operating for cash having undergone and failed an evaluation without warning the clients

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Pixel42
I have no problem with the people who make their living out of exploiting other peoples' wilful ignorance. They are providing a valuable public service by punishing such idiots by relieving them of their money.

Con-artists don't deceit only stupid normal people. Many of their victims are desperate people who would try anything. Others are mentally challenged. Still others live in very small societies where information is scarce and urban legends are plentiful.

[steenkh]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Perhaps they should be licensed. Just as we must demonstrate that we can operate a motor vehicle before we are licensed to do so, they should be able to pass a simple test before they can be licensed to collect money for services rendered as a psychic. That way, it need not be an offense to claim to be a genuine psychic...it would merely to be an offense to do so without proper credentials.

But who should license them? Many "psychics", including Geller, have been tested and declared genuine by "reputable" scientists. :o

[Ashles]

Yes absolutely if they charge in any way for their services.

No if they do it for free or they hand out a disclaimer beforehand saying it is 'no guarantee of accuracy' and is 'just for entertainment' (or something similar).

If they want to provide genuine comfort to people they can put in the effort and actually train for several years to be able to do it properly.

[bmillsap]

Should an honestly deluded person who thinks they're psychic face criminal fraud prosecution when their 'ability' fails? No, because fraud requires intent to deceive. Criminal negligence? Maybe, but that would probably require showing that the 'psychic' acted with disregard for the results of their actions, which would be difficult to show for the honestly deluded person who truly believes they are helping someone.

Should an honestly deluded person who thinks they're psychic face civil liability for damages caused when their 'ability' fails? Yes, because even if I didn't mean to cause damage, you should have recourse if I do. Unless, of course, they have received a waiver of liability from the client or have otherwise provided a disclaimer.

Should a dishonest person who knows they're not psychic face criminal fraud prosecution for claiming they are and taking money or causing harm? Yes.

These views are somewhat influenced by my views on personal freedoms. I have a low tolerance for any sort of criminal prosecution based on speech or ideas, and generally believe that consenting adults should have freedom to enter into whatever arrangements they like, but also believe that people need to be responsible for the results of those actions.

[Tricky]

There actually was such a bill in 1926 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/houdini/timeline/index_3.html) and it was supported by none other than Harry Houdini. Unfortunately, the bill failed to pass, and we have continued to be plagued by charlatans. Today, no congressman would have the guts to propose such a bill, unless it could be shown that psychics are anti-Christian. With so many of them (Like Sylvia Browne) claiming to be working for the Christian God, that seems unlikely.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by bmillsap
Should an honestly deluded person who thinks they're psychic face criminal fraud prosecution when their 'ability' fails? No, because fraud requires intent to deceive. Criminal negligence? Maybe, but that would probably require showing that the 'psychic' acted with disregard for the results of their actions, which would be difficult to show for the honestly deluded person who truly believes they are helping someone.

Should an honestly deluded person who thinks they're psychic face civil liability for damages caused when their 'ability' fails? Yes, because even if I didn't mean to cause damage, you should have recourse if I do. Unless, of course, they have received a waiver of liability from the client or have otherwise provided a disclaimer.

Should a dishonest person who knows they're not psychic face criminal fraud prosecution for claiming they are and taking money or causing harm? Yes.

These views are somewhat influenced by my views on personal freedoms. I have a low tolerance for any sort of criminal prosecution based on speech or ideas, and generally believe that consenting adults should have freedom to enter into whatever arrangements they like, but also believe that people need to be responsible for the results of those actions.

I would agree except that for the "honest delusion" defence to be accepted, I would require that they had made reasonable efforts to verify they could do what they claimed. Absent such efforts I don't see how you can conclude something is "honest delusion" as opposed to "couldn't care less if it works or not, I get paid".

[Bob Klase]

I can claim to be a genuine astronaut, and it's not against the law.

True. And I don't think it should be against the law to claim anything. But suppose you claim to be a genuine astronaut and claim you can take someone for a ride in the space shuttle. You collect $10,000 from them, blindfold them and drive them around in your car for a while. That's fraud.

Should be the same for psychics- let them claim anything they want. When they take money for something they're not really providing it's fraud.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Pixel42
No-one who can read and who knows where the nearest library is has any excuse for believing in psychics, astrology, homeopathy or any other such tosh. I disagree. You can find more books in favor of such tripe than skeptical of it. You can find more people on TV and radio promoting it than debunking it ("next on Larry King Live..."). In the local bookstore, the New Age section is at least twice the size of the Science section...

When the majority of the people around you believe X, Y, and Z, and seem to be surviving just fine, it seems harsh to blame any one individual for failing to question them--especially when they may not have ever learned how.

I do think that skepticism should be a stronger part of science classes, even at elementary school age. Emily Rosa's experiment demonstrates that we don't have to wait.

[Ashles]

And I don't think it should be against the law to claim anything. But suppose you claim to be a genuine astronaut and claim you can take someone for a ride in the space shuttle. You collect $10,000 from them, blindfold them and drive them around in your car for a while.
I like that example.

And although it sounds like a highly exaggerated example, when you really think about it how does it honestly compare to:

"I shall speak to the dead, ask you loads of questions about who I'm talking to, have to guess at names from first letters and never tell you anything you don't already know. For this you will pay me."

It makes the space shuttle one look actually quite sensible.
At least we know space shuttle travel is really possible.

[The Mighty Thor]

The trouble with licensing is that it would give legitimacy to psychics. We would expect that no licences would be granted. But no doubt the "testing body" would end up filled with "scientists" like Coghill, and licences would issued making the public think the phenomena are real.

Also, there is a problem with Spiritualist Churches. They would no doubt cry "Religious persecution!".

Priests and Ministers say they talk to, and get messages from God, and base their advice to others on this. They get paid, too.

It was fun at the beginning of the nineteenth century when established religion attacked the Spiritualists. Pot calling kettle black.

[Mojo]

Actually, in this country it is illegal to claim to be a psychic (at least, for money).

Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951:
(from subsection (1) any person who with intent to deceive purports to act as a spiritualistic medium or to exercise any powers of telepathy, clairvoyance or other similar powers shall be guilty of an offence.
The defences to this are:
A person shall not be convicted of an offence under the foregoing subsection unless it is proved that he acted for reward

...

Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall apply to anything done solely for the purpose of entertainment
So, if the "medium" or "psychic" admits to not being genuine ("solely for the purpose of entertainment") they can get away with it... :D

I have seen spiritualist websites that claim that this means that the law of England recognises that there are "genuine" mediums (because of the use of the word "fraudulent"), but in practice I think there is an assumption that anyone who claims to be a medium is a fraud.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Eleatic said:
I think they should be prosecuted only if they are not in fact genuine psychics.
I agree completely.

~~ Paul

[Trebuchet]

As far as I'm concerned, we don't need new laws, we need to enforce ones already on the books. Sylvia, Edward, and the rest are clearly guilty of fraud and should be prosecuted. Regardless of whether they use "entertainment" disclaimers.

Won't happen, of course.

[Open Mind]

I definitely don’t think we can make someone a criminal because they claim to be a genuine psychic, especially as no one can disprove PSI could be a spontaneous inconsistent phenomena, difficult for science to quantify or test..

However I do have a lot of sympathy with those who would restrict the amount of money psychics can possibly earn, to help remove those who do it for money rather than any sincere belief they are psychic.

As to the potential dangers of psychics, that could be minimized by psychics not foretelling future ……… This is one the supposed differences between ‘medium’ and ‘psychic’ …. strictly speaking mediums are not supposed to predict the future (unless suggested as a possibility) however psychics of the fortune telling kind often do. For example the prediction ‘you are going to move house’ is not evidential and may influence whereas ‘you have just moved house’ is confirmable and less likely to influence ….. a psychic should not say ‘you are going to move house’ …more acceptible is ‘you are thinking of moving house, is that correct?’ . …. The problems are more likely with predicting and influencing decisions.

[rppa]

Claiming to be a psychic, no. Not an automatically criminal offense.

Using the claims to run a confidence game, yes. There are cases where the John Edwards' of the world cause clear harm, damage to the people they mislead. There should be a crime in there somewhere.

[rppa]

Originally posted by El Greco
Con-artists don't deceit only stupid normal people. Many of their victims are desperate people who would try anything. Others are mentally challenged. Still others live in very small societies where information is scarce and urban legends are plentiful.

This is probably off-topic, but a whole genre of con games is based on greed rather than stupidity or ignorance, the Nigerian scam for instance. However, I can't think offhand of a psychic con that is based on the mark's greed. That's why I said the comment may be off-topic.

[Sanamas]

I voted no; while I'm in favor of stricter fraud laws and better enforcement of existing ones, I'm not in favor of throwing the book at every goofball with "paranormal" powers.

Giving people freedom includes the freedom to be a gullible moron. I think that the best way to combat it is through education, not legislation.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Sanamas
Giving people freedom includes the freedom to be a gullible moron. I think that the best way to combat it is through education, not legislation.

So, there should be no laws to protect the consumer?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Sanamas
Giving people freedom includes the freedom to be a gullible moron.
Try substituting "ripped off" for "a gullible moron" in this sentence. Do you still agree with it?

[maddafinga]

Originally posted by Sanamas
I voted no; while I'm in favor of stricter fraud laws and better enforcement of existing ones, I'm not in favor of throwing the book at every goofball with "paranormal" powers.

Giving people freedom includes the freedom to be a gullible moron. I think that the best way to combat it is through education, not legislation.

I've always felt that jail should be used as a place to house the people who are simply too dangerous to be out in the wild with the rest of us. It should be a tool to be used to keep the really bad guys from being able to victimize the rest of the masses.

Becuase of that, though I think frauds of that type should be arrested, and playing these sort of psychic confidence games should be a crime, but not warrant any jail time. The punishment for these types of monetary criminals should be monetary as well. Take all of their money and possessions away if they're caught using this type of claim to gain money and possessions for themselves. Let them start over working a real job with a crappy apartment in a bad part of town. They can take the bus, and can only buy a new car or get a nicer place to live if they can do it legitimately.

There'd have to be some way to flag these people in the system, but I don't think it would be un-do-able.

[Open Mind]

45% in here want a claim of being a genuine psychic made illegal? :eek: Did you guys by any chance watch Scoobie Doo when growing up? ;)

I've been given messages by psychics many times. I'm still alive! No, they didn't slit my throat. :) I paid very little money indeed and a few of them were surprisingly good, by which I mean beating cold reading odds to a degree it wasn't cold reading for sure IMHO.

Even the useless ones (and the vast majority are useless unfortunately) were still sincere, nice people. And about as dangerous as reading a newspaper astrology column? :D

Originally posted by Mojo
Try substituting "ripped off" for "a gullible moron" in this sentence. Do you still agree with it?

The problem is defining 'ripped off'. 3 people might go to see a psychic, 1 feels delighted, 1 feels content and 1 feels 'ripped off'. There is nothing stopping the person feeling ripped off claiming a refund, they should!

As you mentioned correctly, the laws to protect general public (at least in UK) are already in place since 1950s. With regard to spiritualist religion you mentioned, 'anyone who claims to be a medium is a fraud' , actually in most spiritualist churches the mediums in public demonstrations are free (optional donation)....... the charlatans are far more likely to be found where there is far more money to be made, like psychic hotlines, psychic websites, stands in psychic fairs etc.

It is probably unfair to stereotype mediums and psychics (even although I do it myself :) )

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Drum roll .......

I believe in a free society and people should be free to buy and sell whatever they wish. However, if someone pays for a service and you do not give them that service you are committing a fraud. No different than paying a plumber to come fix your toilet and he never does. Psychics can not, in fact, deliver the service they claim they can deliver, in as much as there is no such thing as pyschic ability. Therefore they are committing fraud and should be prosecuted.