psychics take two

[panchov]

HI there, it's me panchov with another question that vexes me...
we were having this discussion about whats her name from england the fake psychic and I kept arguing that if an adult wants to go to a psychic, you can't claim the psychic is a fraud because we all as adults know that psychic readings are hoo hoo to begin with. The VICTIM is is an active willing participant in their own victimization.

I'm wondering how most of you feel about this. For instance Sylvia and what she's done to families of the dead (ive learned from this site), she's sickening and of course I would guess that anybody hearing about it would have sympathy for the families - but I also can't help but think that I mean face Sylvia is so obviously faking it - Ive known very little about her before I came here, only seen her a few times and it was immediately obvious. Not only does she fake it, but she's nasty. So if somebody's kid is missing and they're dumb enough to go to her for advice, aren't they kind of asking for whatever they get?

Or am I just cold and cruel (really I do have sympathy for them, she's a blankety blank) - I just think they hold SOME responsibility. Not all. Help me out here someone Please.

The other thing is, while I think Sylvia should be allowed to keep going as long as adults are wanting to pay her money (even though it's disgusting), I do think if she's leading police on goose chases, ect, someone should try to do something. WHats going on here, why don't the police at the very least come out and forcefully publicly say that she's wasting their time? Why is it only here that I'm hearing that? The police should stop each other from using her by word of mouth! If they don't, then again, they hold some of the responsibility.


Thanks, Panch

[-Fran-]

It's obvious to us... sadly it seems many people actually do believe... for real!

[ExMinister]

Desperate people will sometimes try desperate things, and grieving people are some of the most traumatized, desperate people out there. And there are a lot of high-profile medical doctors and PHds out there these days advocating parapsychology, conducting near-death experience research, etc., who seem very intelligent and credible, who unfortunately make it even easier for people to believe that there might be some legitimacy to Sylvia Browne, too.

I don't think there's any excuse for knowingly victimizing people, and I think it's even harder these days for people to discern thanks to all the positive publicity these types of people are now receiving. Throw in the fact that some of these psychics/mediums/experts are probably in fact sincere but deluded (Sylvia Browne isn't), and people get even mroe confused.

That said, Robert Lancaster's site is a big step in the right direction. He's presenting evidence that will hopefully appeal to the more logical people before they are taken in.

I'd really like to see more "spiritual" people realize that skepticism also means critical thinking and is not necessarily synonymous with atheism or cynicism. I think Robert Lancaster's site is a step in the right direction that way too.

Sorry to rant. But in my mind, while I can see the argument that people need to take responsibility for where they spend their money and what they choose to believe, I do believe the media and some of the so-called experts are making it a lot harder for people to discern.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

We've already had this discussion about Sylvia Browne a dozen times but I'll throw in my two cents once again.

Having seen Sylvia Browne tape a Montel episode in person, I can understand why so many people turn to her. A few people turn to psychics for frivolous reasons but almost all of my audience had been through a traumatic and unimaginable life event such as the murder or suicide of a child, the unexpected and sudden death of a parent, spouse or significant other, a horrible accident or the diagnosis of a major illness.

It was sobbering to realize I was probably the only person in the room who hadn't had a very recent and very traumatic death.

It's easy to criticize someone for turning to a disgusting person like her, even in a time of tragedy, but not everyone has the advantage of being a skeptic prior to a disaster. Assuming you had never heard of cold reading before, how would you know how you'd react when you first came into contact with a psychic?

As for the police, it often happens that its the families who pressure law enforcement to follow up on false leads. There's also the possibility that the psychic is somehow involved or has knowledge of the crime or the possibility that the police are using a psychic to worm a confession out of a superstitious suspect.

I'd also imagine that the police would follow up on a psychic's lead because a case is so stuck in one place, there's nothing for them to investigate but what a psychic says.

[panchov]

We've already had this discussion about Sylvia Browne a dozen times but I'll throw in my two cents once again.

Having seen Sylvia Browne tape a Montel episode in person, I can understand why so many people turn to her. A few people turn to psychics for frivolous reasons but almost all of my audience had been through a traumatic and unimaginable life event such as the murder or suicide of a child, the unexpected and sudden death of a parent, spouse or significant other, a horrible accident or the diagnosis of a major illness.

It was sobbering to realize I was probably the only person in the room who hadn't had a very recent and very traumatic death.

It's easy to criticize someone for turning to a disgusting person like her, even in a time of tragedy, but not everyone has the advantage of being a skeptic prior to a disaster. Assuming you had never heard of cold reading before, how would you know how you'd react when you first came into contact with a psychic?

As for the police, it often happens that its the families who pressure law enforcement to follow up on false leads. There's also the possibility that the psychic is somehow involved or has knowledge of the crime or the possibility that the police are using a psychic to worm a confession out of a superstitious suspect.

I'd also imagine that the police would follow up on a psychic's lead because a case is so stuck in one place, there's nothing for them to investigate but what a psychic says.


Well, I may be a skeptic, and I may know what cold reading is, but I am not a disbeliever. I do tend to think it's possible to have psychic abilities, but when I see flim flam in front of me, I don't believe. I know what you are saying though and I am in no way saying these creeps aren't responsible even more responsible than the people who go to them. I really don't get why the police don't shut her down though, just by coming out and telling the truth. The police aren't traumatized family members. Maybe she has a way of brainwashing people!

[panchov]

By the way, I understand why the police are willing to listen to them to begin with, what I don't understand is how Sylvia can say over and over and over that she's helped police solve crimes, led them to bodies etc, if it's not true, and why the police don't stand up and say YOU WERE NO HELP AT ALL, YOU ARE LYING, HERE'S THE PROOF when she says it. Think how far that would go to shutting her down.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Well, I may be a skeptic, and I may know what cold reading is, but I am not a disbeliever. I do tend to think it's possible to have psychic abilities, but when I see flim flam in front of me, I don't believe. I know what you are saying though and I am in no way saying these creeps aren't responsible even more responsible than the people who go to them. I really don't get why the police don't shut her down though, just by coming out and telling the truth. The police aren't traumatized family members. Maybe she has a way of brainwashing people!

There was a case way back in 1997 where a young single mother from Oswego in upstate New York named Carol Wood disappeared without a trace after leaving a bar.

Her sisters appeared on the talk show hosted by Sally Jesse Raphael so Sylvia Browne could tell them their sister was dead while they cried and give them locations where the body supposedly was. To my recollection, she told them it was by a shed by a large body of water. It led the family and the police on a wild goose chase throughout New York- I think several locations that looked like the shed by the water were searched.

Carol Wood's disappearance and the search by her sisters were profiled in a few publications in Oswego and the sister was asked about the police following up on a psychic's leads and she said (paraphrasing from memory here) "The police check out everything, anything I tell them about. I tell them that I had a dream of Carol in a place that looks like this and they go and check it out. They told me to come to them with anything."

It seemed incredible to me that the police would follow up on someone's dreams of her sister being murdered and a psychic's "vision" but there might be a reasonable explanation in this case.

[ExMinister]

I think it's great the police are willing to follow up any lead, horrible that psychics like Sylvia are willing to waste their time for their own selfish purposes.

Also, Sylvia is notoriously vague about exactly which police she has helped.

And as far as the ones she actually may have worked with and failed to help, who would they tell? Who would listen? Unless it's a case as huge as Shawn Hornbeck's where what Sylvia said was video-recorded or taped, I'm not sure there's anyone who would feel it worthwhile to come forward. Especially if whatever she said was just vague but not wrong, or at the risk of having to be interviewed and put on the spot about a case where there are details that aren't supposed to be made public. It's also possible the police are not encouraged to make public the fact that they occasionally are willing to work with a psychic to appease a family or for other reasons such as those Eenie mentioned above.

As a side note, I'm personally not convinced she's helped the police all that often anyway. Any other ex-Novus people know differently? I just think it's odd that for years now she's had a statement that she could "no longer" do private phone readings regarding missing persons cases.

And where are all the families/police who should be coming forward publicly to thank her for all the crimes she's supposedly helped solve? What a great story that would make. So where are they?

[panchov]

I think it's great the police are willing to follow up any lead, horrible that psychics like Sylvia are willing to waste their time for their own selfish purposes.

Also, Sylvia is notoriously vague about exactly which police she has helped.

And as far as the ones she actually may have worked with and failed to help, who would they tell? Who would listen? Unless it's a case as huge as Shawn Hornbeck's where what Sylvia said was video-recorded or taped, I'm not sure there's anyone who would feel it worthwhile to come forward. Especially if whatever she said was just vague but not wrong, or at the risk of having to be interviewed and put on the spot about a case where there are details that aren't supposed to be made public. It's also possible the police are not encouraged to make public the fact that they occasionally are willing to work with a psychic to appease a family or for other reasons such as those Eenie mentioned above.

As a side note, I'm personally not convinced she's helped the police all that often anyway. Any other ex-Novus people know differently? I just think it's odd that for years now she's had a statement that she could "no longer" do private phone readings regarding missing persons cases.

And where are all the families/police who should be coming forward publicly to thank her for all the crimes she's supposedly helped solve? What a great story that would make. So where are they?

Ah, that could explain it. If she doesn't give say which police, how can they say she's lying. I learn so much from you guys!

byw, what's an exnovus?

[my_wan]

The problem with the willing victim is desperation. No matter how reasonable a person normally is if it comes to your missing or fatally ill child how much is too much? Would you risk withholding anything that has any outrageous slim possibility to help. People in these situations are literally inundated with the likes of Silvia. Where do you draw the line between willingness and duress? Is it not criminals to use a persons desperation to drain their money?

So perhaps you agree that should be criminal. What about the old lady that goes to a psychic and is told they have a curse on them. With enough sessions and payments this curse can be removed. Is this old lady a willing victim when tens of thousands of dollars are cleaned from their bank account, sometimes losing their homes in the process? It happens more than you can imagine.

The shame and lack of reporting of this kind of crime is what allows this fallacious belief in harmlessness and willing victim to continue. This arguement could hold if all that ever happened was a $30 payment for some crap about your love life. In reality people are being ruined.

[panchov]

Yeah, it's a mess. So how do we decide? If the old lady goes to the psychic willingly, hands over her money willingly, victim of belief or not, is she without responsibility? I can see it both ways, but the problem is that until people are responsible for their own actions, they will continue to be fleeced in the awful ways you describe.

I've always said though, if the psychic approaches the victim, it should be considered criminal fraud the whole way. I'm only talking about cases where the the person themselves seek out the psychic.

[ExMinister]

Sylvia Browne's church is the Society of Novus Spiritus. There are a few ex-members and ex-ministers who sometimes post on this forum.

[panchov]

Sylvia Browne's church is the Society of Novus Spiritus. There are a few ex-members and ex-ministers who sometimes post on this forum.

She has a church? Thats the scariest thing yet.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

She has a church? Thats the scariest thing yet.

Make that a "church", in quotation marks.

Yes, she has a corporation and a church and a radio show and is a card carrying union member of television personalities, meaning she actually gets paid for appearing on Montel. How far subpar cold-reading will get you! Oh, darn conscience!

Having seen her in person, I can tell you that I'm a better cold reader than she is. Not that it takes any particular skill.

As a matter of fact, she was so sluggish and inept and missed so many obvious answers that I, to my enormous surprise, found myself cold reading along with her. And was better at it than she was.

[godless dave]

The problem with the willing victim is desperation. No matter how reasonable a person normally is if it comes to your missing or fatally ill child how much is too much? Would you risk withholding anything that has any outrageous slim possibility to help. People in these situations are literally inundated with the likes of Silvia. Where do you draw the line between willingness and duress? Is it not criminals to use a persons desperation to drain their money?

So perhaps you agree that should be criminal. What about the old lady that goes to a psychic and is told they have a curse on them. With enough sessions and payments this curse can be removed. Is this old lady a willing victim when tens of thousands of dollars are cleaned from their bank account, sometimes losing their homes in the process? It happens more than you can imagine.

I view it sort of like severe drug addiction. The addict is an idiot for using a substance known to be deadly and highly addictive, and the person who sold it to them is reprehensible for supplying it to the addict.

An educated person in the western world should know better than to consult a psychic, but the psychics are reprehensible for taking advantage of vulnerable people. There's plenty of blame to go around.

[my_wan]

Yeah, it's a mess. So how do we decide? If the old lady goes to the psychic willingly, hands over her money willingly, victim of belief or not, is she without responsibility? I can see it both ways, but the problem is that until people are responsible for their own actions, they will continue to be fleeced in the awful ways you describe.

I've always said though, if the psychic approaches the victim, it should be considered criminal fraud the whole way. I'm only talking about cases where the the person themselves seek out the psychic.

I would settle for, though not totally satisfied with, making it illegal for a psychic to approach or offer services to anyone that didn't come to them and ask any money for those services, including expenses. Also if a psychic informs any customer that they are cursed or in any danger and claims to be able to help, all services must be free until all supposed danger is past. Is it not all such psychics claim that they are only there to help. They even refuse the Randi challenge on such altruistic grounds. The legal and financial penalties should be such that any individual that finds a psychic in violation must be paid $2000 by said psychic on top of other legal ramifications. Directly threatening customers with spells etc. should have a minimum prison sentence. A law like this would allow the "for entertainment" psychics to operate with impunity. To fight such a law would be a public relations nightmare for the psychic industry.

We could still educate the public to the best of our ability but at least the distraught people would have real legal protections.

[Niobe]

Also, Sylvia is notoriously vague about exactly which police she has helped.

And where are all the families/police who should be coming forward publicly to thank her for all the crimes she's supposedly helped solve? What a great story that would make. So where are they?

The excuse is that that is classified because society or the elite can't handle the truth about their abilities.
Never mind that they are public figures getting serious pocket change from appearances, book deals and TV shows (Allison DuBois comes to mind) and celebrity endorsements, but as soon as law enforcement would also back them up that would be something society can't handle (The same society that made them millionaires in the first place)

[Garrette]

I do tend to think it's possible to have psychic abilities, but when I see flim flam in front of me, I don't believe. At first glance, my response to this comment may seem needlessly argumentative and off topic, but I think it is neither.

How do you distinguish between flim flam in front of you and not flim flam in front of you?

[JoeTheJuggler]

The VICTIM is is an active willing participant in their own victimization.

The same can be said of virtually all scams, frauds and con-games. Especially if the victim's "participation" is believing that statements made by other people are true. Most scams involve situations that a reasonably knowledgeable person would doubt (too good to be true--as in, "You've just won a foreign lottery that you never even entered"). I agree that it's a sad commentary on people's critical thinking skills, but people who fall for these scams are victims, and the people who perpetrate them are crooks.

I'm buying a house right now, and I rely a lot on the statements made by other parties. If one of them is misrepresenting the facts and it causes me damages, I probably would have legal recourse to hold them liable. Are you suggesting that because I believed and relied on their statements that they can lie to me all they want and not be held liable?

[Leftus]

Interesting thought. The dead have no standing in US courts. You can slander and libel them til the end of days and get off free. The dead have no rights. The living, on the other hand, might have options. It would be very interesting for someone like Shawn Hornbeck or someone else who lived through a kidnapping to sue the psychics who sent the police and family on wild goose chases by giving the family and police knowingly false information under some sort of conspiracy (with Montel) or negligence theory. I know if I was being held against my will and some fakir said they saw my spirit on the other side which caused me to spend more time against my will I'd go after them too.

[panchov]

Also if a psychic informs any customer that they are cursed or in any danger and claims to be able to help, all services must be free until all supposed danger is past.

I disagree with this, it's a little like saying if a doctor tells a patient they have cancer, the doctor's services must be free until the patient is cured. You have to remember, the psychic's "Patient" is still free to reject the notion of the curse, or to go to another psychic for a second opinion. THey are still choosing to believe. What I do think should incur prison time is if they do something like pretend to burn money when really they are swithching it. Maybe that does incur prison time, it must be considered fraud.

[panchov]

At first glance, my response to this comment may seem needlessly argumentative and off topic, but I think it is neither.

How do you distinguish between flim flam in front of you and not flim flam in front of you?

Sorry, I don't understand the question. I won't take it as argumentative though, I promise.

[-Fran-]

Sorry, I don't understand the question. I won't take it as argumentative though, I promise.

I think he meant, how do you distuingish between a real psychic and a fake one? How can you tell?

[panchov]

The same can be said of virtually all scams, frauds and con-games. Especially if the victim's "participation" is believing that statements made by other people are true. Most scams involve situations that a reasonably knowledgeable person would doubt (too good to be true--as in, "You've just won a foreign lottery that you never even entered"). I agree that it's a sad commentary on people's critical thinking skills, but people who fall for these scams are victims, and the people who perpetrate them are crooks.

I'm buying a house right now, and I rely a lot on the statements made by other parties. If one of them is misrepresenting the facts and it causes me damages, I probably would have legal recourse to hold them liable. Are you suggesting that because I believed and relied on their statements that they can lie to me all they want and not be held liable?


No, but in that case, you are asking them for information that we all know can be verified as true or not true. A person who goes to psychic is knowingly asking for information that cannot be verified and that they know is coming from mysterious sources inside the psychics head. This is exactly what I said in the other thread - a person who approaches a psychic and asks for a reading will receive EXACTLY what they paid for. If you ask your house inspector for the status of your house and he lies, that is not what you asked for. How can you claim fraud unless the psychic did something malicious to trick you such as investigated you before hand? In my mind it really doesn’t even matter if the psychic knows they’re lying when they give the reading because whether they’re lying or whether they’re deluded, the person who approaches them knows they may or may not be telling the truth.

We all have to admit that they know there’s a possibility the psychic is lying, even if they believe in psychic powers. If they aren’t capable of understanding this, they truly should have someone in charge of their affairs because they would be susceptible to believing anything anyone told them at any time. Taking this responsibility away from them is condescending and dishonest.

And yes, I think people who are scammed by con artists, are partially responsible if it involved a situation that was absurd and promised them lots of money from a stranger if they participated. In that case they are as much a victim of their own greed (and hey, I’ve gotten scalped at 3 card monty and hold myself entirely responsible).

IT’s entirely different if the stranger is a professional who (again) made promises to do things that can be verified as true or false (investing money in a company that never existed for instance).

[panchov]

I think he meant, how do you distuingish between a real psychic and a fake one? How can you tell?

Becuase most of what they tell you is WRONG and they pretend they got things right when the didn't.

[panchov]

Interesting thought. The dead have no standing in US courts. You can slander and libel them til the end of days and get off free. The dead have no rights. The living, on the other hand, might have options. It would be very interesting for someone like Shawn Hornbeck or someone else who lived through a kidnapping to sue the psychics who sent the police and family on wild goose chases by giving the family and police knowingly false information under some sort of conspiracy (with Montel) or negligence theory. I know if I was being held against my will and some fakir said they saw my spirit on the other side which caused me to spend more time against my will I'd go after them too.

Wouldn't you have to be able to prove the "knowingly" part?

[-Fran-]

Becuase most of what they tell you is WRONG and they pretend they got things right when the didn't.

So, a real psychic would be someone who is right more times than can be accounted to chance alone?

[panchov]

Well that's part of it, but when the deceptive practices are right in front of your eyes and you refuse to see them because YOU WANT TO BELIEVE, then why would blame the psychic for forcing you to believe.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<< SNIP >>

A person who goes to psychic is knowingly asking for information that cannot be verified and that they know is coming from mysterious sources inside the psychics head.

<< SNIP >>



If all the psychic can do is provide "information that cannot be verified", how do you every know that it is every true? As soon as they say something that can be verified do they cease to be a "true" pyschic?

Psychic says, Grandad says he loves you, is true even though he and you did not talk for the last 50 years of his life after throwing you out of the house == TRUE?

Psychic says, Grandad says he buried his gold dubloons in a box in the backyard and you dig the whole thing up and find nothing but chicken bones == CAN'T BE DONE BY A PSYCHIC?

Seems incredibly useless except to the credulous! :boggled:

[ExMinister]

I disagree that the deception is "right in front of everyone's eyes." Thanks to Montel and editing, Sylvia Browne (who I know is a fraud from personal experience) comes out looking quite convincing, and it takes quite a bit of that to convince someone to shell out $750, which is Sylvia's going rate for a reading.

I also strongly believe that many of us were raised to assume that most psychics are in fact genuine, and I disagree that people in general are aware the psychic may be lying and deserve what they get. In my family, my grandmother had "visions" of family members when they died. She claimed they visited her bedside shortly after the moment of death and she always anticipated the phone call the next morning. Whether there is some other logical explanation for it, this was something we grew up believing, in fact even believing it ran in our family due to our part-Native American ancestry. So I believed people with psychic abilities were sincere and gifted. I don't think it's possible to lump together all people who seek out psychics for help.

Unfortunately, the psychic world is full of scam artists and some of us had to learn that the hard way.

[sophia8]

It seemed incredible to me that the police would follow up on someone's dreams of her sister being murdered and a psychic's "vision" but there might be a reasonable explanation in this case.
The police have to follow up every lead they're given, regardless of where it comes from, because there's alway a possibility that the tipster really does know something and is using the "dream" or "psychic message" to hide the fact that they have some involvement with the disappearence/murder.
I can't remember the reference, but there was a case a few years ago when a woman claimed to have dreamt about the location of a missing body, which turned out to be where she said it was. The woman lived in the same small town as the killers and shared some mutual friends; she had never made any claims to psychism before and didn't try to cash in on her fame afterwards. Reading between the lines, it was pretty obvious that she was concerned that the body should be found but hadn't wanted to go to the the police with "I overheard so-and-so saying that it was dumped here..."
In the case of the sister's dream, the police may have suspected she was involved in the disappearence and was 'confessing' in some way, or alternatively thought that she had some information buried in her subconscious.

[panchov]

You guys the whole thing is that I'm kind of in agreement with you. Fake psychics are vultures, they're horrible. My only assertion is that people are responsible for what they do, what they believe and how they act on that belief. If they don't want to question the psychic and want to follow them blindly, they are responsible for that decision. A lot of times I'm sure they get comfort and the bad stuff is probably a lot less common then the fake comfort which works even though it's fake.

Think Condoleezza Rice...I'm sure she believes George Bush is right and it is her duty and privilege to front for him. Does that relieve her of any responsibility? (Sorry, I don't mean to offend any Republicans, there's Democrats you could ask the same questions about during other presidencies.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

We all have to admit that they know there’s a possibility the psychic is lying, even if they believe in psychic powers. If they aren’t capable of understanding this, they truly should have someone in charge of their affairs because they would be susceptible to believing anything anyone told them at any time. Taking this responsibility away from them is condescending and dishonest.
I hate to burst your bubble, but there are people who actually believe all sorts of very foolish things, and there's no legal way to remove their autonomy. Not only are there many people who believe that their favorite psychic/astrologer/medium is always 100% right and would never lie, there are also people who believe the Earth is only about 4000 years old and that species don't evolve.

And yes, I think people who are scammed by con artists, are partially responsible if it involved a situation that was absurd and promised them lots of money from a stranger if they participated. In that case they are as much a victim of their own greed (and hey, I’ve gotten scalped at 3 card monty and hold myself entirely responsible).

I agree that everyone is responsible for the consequences of the decisions they make. I further agree that being taken can be a good lesson learned.

I have trouble with excusing dishonest (even criminal) behavior just because the victim should have known better, or was even somehow partly responsible.

If I leave my car unlocked and the keys in the ignition, does that make it OK for someone to steal it?

What about a promiscuous or even promiscuous-looking young woman--if she is raped, is her rapist innocent of a crime?


IT’s entirely different if the stranger is a professional who (again) made promises to do things that can be verified as true or false (investing money in a company that never existed for instance).
Hmm. . .sounds like you'd accept the Enron defense (we didn't lie--the information was in the footnotes if someone was knowledgeable enough to figure it out).

So you can't be held responsible for your claims unless they're verifiable as true or false? I think malpractice claims go beyond that cut off point.

[panchov]

You got to show me where I indicated that the is responsible for the psychics actions. THe victim is responsible for their own actions.
No rape victims are not responsible for being raped, but the sad truth is that sometimes people who have no intention of asking for trouble, actually beg for it by their behavior. I don't guess you would advise your daughter to wear skimpy clothes in bar in dangerous part of town. Waiting 2 years for a reading for John Edward and paying him exorbitant fees to get it, is very literallly begging to be ripped off.
Hey I left my bike tire unlocked after being warned 500 times not to and guess what, someone finally stole it. Am I responsible? I'm responsible for it being vulnerable to theft, but not for the person who took it.

[schlitt]

Panchov, you are correct in your assertion that someone visiting a psychic has willfully chosen to be duped.
However, you have to look at WHY they made that descision, and if they were aware they are being ripped off.

You could simply state "They are stupid", which is pretty much what you are eluding to. This could be correct, but it is what has caused the person to act in a stupid manner which is of interest, researching this you may find the people who do this are no more stupid than yourself. People can be simply misinformed, or willfully ignorant.

[panchov]

No, I don't think they're stupid, I think that they derive comfort and guidance from psychics. But if you're going to willfully take the good, you have to pay the piper when it comes to the bad.

I guess you guys answered my question anyway. You may be right, what do I know? Maybe we are all victims. I just think it behooves us to be aware of danger (when possible, becuase there's plenty of times when it comes without warning).

[Pup]

While I would love for something to be done about fraudulent psychics (actually, "fraudulant" and "psychics" is kinda redundant, now that I think about it)...

How would you separate out what psychics do from what churches do, and therefore, practically speaking, how would you get a law passed in any country that protects freedom of religion?

"You're cursed with eternal torment when you die, but we can cure that. Believe in Jesus and pay us ten percent of your income."

"We know where your dead relatives are, but if you ever want to see them again, you need to believe in our god, come to our church every Sunday, and we'll be passing a collection plate."

Not much different than fake gypsy curses or psychic messages from the dead.

Of course one could say it's okay to make any psychic/religious promises as long as money isn't demanded, but churches and psychics are going to work hard to find ways to accept "voluntary unsolicited donations."

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

If I could make what psychics do illegal and make them negligible and responsible by law, I would but I honestly don't think there's a way to do it. Not in practise.

How would you make what they do illegal? On what grounds would you prosecute them? You can't hold them accountable the same way you can hold, say, a producer of a product or a faulty advertiser. Where do you draw the line?

[JoeTheJuggler]

You got to show me where I indicated that the is responsible for the psychics actions. THe victim is responsible for their own actions.

<snip>

Hey I left my bike tire unlocked after being warned 500 times not to and guess what, someone finally stole it. Am I responsible? I'm responsible for it being vulnerable to theft, but not for the person who took it.
I never said you said the victim is responsible for the criminal's actions--I'm not even sure what you mean by that.

I was responding to what you said in the OP (my bolding):

we were having this discussion about whats her name from england the fake psychic and I kept arguing that if an adult wants to go to a psychic, you can't claim the psychic is a fraud because we all as adults know that psychic readings are hoo hoo to begin with. The VICTIM is is an active willing participant in their own victimization.

I'm wondering how most of you feel about this.

I'm pointing out that the psychic is a fraud when he or she commits fraud by taking people's money under false pretenses. The foolishness or other vulnerabilities of the victim do not exculpate the fraudster's actions.

If you rule out fraud in cases where the victim believed the fraudster, then you'd simply rule out all fraud.

I made a number of comparisons to other crimes where the victim's "participation" is obviously no defense or excuse for the crimes committed against them.

Waiting 2 years for a reading for John Edward and paying him exorbitant fees to get it, is very literallly begging to be ripped off.
No it's not. . .unless by "literally" you mean "not literally" or "figuratively".

Similarly, leaving your bike unlocked does not mean that someone taking it has not committed a crime (unless, I suppose, there was a legitimate claim of abandoned property or some other special circumstances).

[JoeTheJuggler]

If I could make what psychics do illegal and make them negligible and responsible by law, I would but I honestly don't think there's a way to do it. Not in practise.

How would you make what they do illegal? On what grounds would you prosecute them? You can't hold them accountable the same way you can hold, say, a producer of a product or a faulty advertiser. Where do you draw the line?
I think you mean "liable" where you said "negligible"--though I would hope they become negligible as well! : )

It is already illegal to take people's money under false pretenses. Many of them get away with it by little "for entertainment purposes only" disclaimers.

Also, there's a reluctance among prosecutors to pursue these cases in criminal court--mostly a political issue, I believe.

In civil court, the biggest trouble is that it's really really difficult to find a victim willing to come forward and press the case.* They'd have to admit, as Panchov has been saying, how truly foolishly they behaved for believing this nonsense.

RSLancaster gave a more complete (and doubtless more accurate and more eloquent) answer to the question of why psychics aren't held legally accountable. I just don't remember where.

ETA: *In the Peter Popoff debunking, Randi sent his info and tapes to the Attorney General who apparently did nothing about it. (Granted this is complicated by the "religion" angle, but you can say the same these days of most psychics.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

How would you make what they do illegal? On what grounds would you prosecute them? You can't hold them accountable the same way you can hold, say, a producer of a product or a faulty advertiser. Where do you draw the line?
Psychics have been prosecuted for fraud. Not as often as ought be done.

Here are some examples:

http://www.crimes-of-persuasion.com/Crimes/InPerson/MajorPerson/psychic_scams.htm

[panchov]

Well you guys, I really thank you for answering my questions and giving me so much to think about. I figure we could go in circles about this all year, but I really am thinking about what you say.

I think I would be more convinced if the rest of society agreed with you that making psychic claims was fraud. I guess the problem with that is that it would probably also have to be a crime to go to psychic so nobody would let that law pass.

Thanks again. (Not asking you to stop if you don't want to, just wanted to throw that in.)

[panchov]

Psychics have been prosecuted for fraud. Not as often as ought be done.

Here are some examples:

http://www.crimes-of-persuasion.com/Crimes/InPerson/MajorPerson/psychic_scams.htm

I didn't check them all out, but they are mostly people who made psychic claims and then committed fraud on top of it, correct? Not people who were prosecuted for making psychic claims only?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Well you guys, I really thank you for answering my questions and giving me so much to think about. I figure we could go in circles about this all year, but I really am thinking about what you say.

I think I would be more convinced if the rest of society agreed with you that making psychic claims was fraud. I guess the problem with that is that it would probably also have to be a crime to go to psychic so nobody would let that law pass.

Thanks again. (Not asking you to stop if you don't want to, just wanted to throw that in.)

Oh, you're welcome :). Where are you from, Russia?

Incidentally, I do think certain states and cities do have laws limiting this sort of twaddle. I know my state does have a penal code against it and did go after a ring of con artists in my home borough of Queens:

http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-07/070706could.html#i5

[panchov]

No, I'm from Texas! That's my cat's name - Pancho Vea (i know thats not how you spell it, he was named after a coworker). My name is Linda.

[panchov]

That link is very interesting. I live in Midtown Manhattan and there is this very scary psychic on my block. I always feel like she's giving me the heebeejeebee curse when I go by and refuse to come in (sometimes she tries to beckon me in between drags of her cigarette). Thank goodness I'm pretty sure there's really no such thing as a heebeejeebee curse, or I might have to spend a lot time walking around the block to avoid her.

[Leftus]

Wouldn't you have to be able to prove the "knowingly" part?

That or a reckless disregard to the truth as far as my understanding goes. It wouldn't be that hard to amass all sorts of predictions given on Montel that have been proven to be incorrect that Montel and what, if any, study they have done in determining her effectiveness. I believe that Lancaster has a letter stating the faith in the accuracy of her predictions which would need to be backed up by some sort of counting system one would imagine. If he doesn't have one then such a belief could be a reckless disregard.

As to Browne, just pile up all of the disclaimers that she uses about her accuracy and then juxtapose that with her assuredness that what she is telling you is right. She claims not to be 100% right but every prediction is given as if it were 100% right meaning that she knows that some of the information she is giving is wrong. If not knowingly, then recklessly. Her only defense then becomes proving her accuracy rate under objective standards.

I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong on the legal theory. Then again, even if I were a lawyer I could be wrong on the legal theory but I believe there is enough there to force a settlement on behalf of the Montel show at least.

[my_wan]

I disagree with this, it's a little like saying if a doctor tells a patient they have cancer, the doctor's services must be free until the patient is cured. You have to remember, the psychic's "Patient" is still free to reject the notion of the curse, or to go to another psychic for a second opinion. THey are still choosing to believe. What I do think should incur prison time is if they do something like pretend to burn money when really they are swithching it. Maybe that does incur prison time, it must be considered fraud.

The whole thing is a fraud. Allowing them to operate is a fraud. I am only conceding an "entertainment" clause in allowing this much. If pretending to burn money is a fraud how is pretending somebody is cursed not a fraud?!! This notion of going "to another psychic for a second opinion" has my blood boiling. I guess your psychic can suggest a few good ones! Many actually use databases of information on their marks so they can hit these people in many different directions while pretending to be unrelated. If I point a gun at your head and demand your money does it matter to the law that there were no bullets? The belief in bullets alone is enough to convict. I don't think a judge would be impressed with the claim that they could have chosen not to believe there were any bullets, or that they could have asked proof that it had bullets.

But your honor... they "chose" to believe there were bullets in that gun! Get real.

[Cuddles]

How would you make what they do illegal? On what grounds would you prosecute them? You can't hold them accountable the same way you can hold, say, a producer of a product or a faulty advertiser. Where do you draw the line?

What they do is already illegal, for exactly the same reasons as the examples you give. They are falsely advertising and they are selling a faulty product. It's all about the burden of proof. You're not allowed to sell something unless you can prove it does what you say it does. They say they can talk to the dead. It's not for anyone else to prove they can't, it's up to them to prove they can. If they don't, they're making false claims about their services.

As already noted, the problem isn't making what they do illegal, it's actually getting anyone to bother doing anything about it.

[panchov]

I keep reading your arguments and thinking yes, they're right, they're convincing me, but then something keeps holding me back.
There really is a difference between someone saying they're going to shoot you and you assuming there are bullets in the gun. This is a specific tangible statement.
But (one more time) - a psychic reading is gobelty gook. Psychics say all the time they get it wrong, NOBODY goes into a psychic reading expecting 100% accuracy, even the most ardent believer. How many times has Sylvia said she gets it wrong and given excuses?
When a person approaches a psychic and asks for psychic reading, THEY KNOW THIS, what they get is a psychic reading. You can't call that fraud (at least Im having a hard time seeing it as such).

[Garrette]

panchov, I have asked the following questions to a lot of believers in/defenders of psychics. Only one has ever even attempted an answer (that's Rodney, on this very forum). I'm interested in your response:

Suppose you know me, and suppose you know that I am a magician. Further suppose that you know that as part of my act I routinely perform a mediumship/psychic bit in which I reveal to the audience things they swear I could not possibly know. In other words, you know that I am capable of giving the impression that I have supernatural powers while actually not having those powers.

Now suppose someone very close to you, someone you love and try to protect, someone like your wife, your daughter, your sister, your mother, your grandmother (or a male relative) suffers a loss and cannot be consoled.

Would it be okay with you if I go to your loved one and charge them money for thirty minutes of reading, after which they will be convinced that I have spoken with the dear departed and after which they feel emotionally healed?

If so, how much is it okay for me to charge? $50? $100? $500?

Remember: You know I'm a fake, but you also know I can use my fake powers to make your loved one happy, all by lying to them.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I didn't check them all out, but they are mostly people who made psychic claims and then committed fraud on top of it, correct? Not people who were prosecuted for making psychic claims only?
Fraud is taking money from people by trickery or deception. In these cases the psychic stuff is the trickery and deception. When a psychic says you need to give her a stack of cash so that she can put all your bad ju-ju into it and then she'll kindly take it off your hands for you, that is fraud.

Many of these have specific charges of wire fraud or mail fraud, that just means the con artist committed fraud over the phone or through the mail.

Some of them were busted for fraud and other related crimes like tax fraud and money laundering.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think I would be more convinced if the rest of society agreed with you that making psychic claims was fraud.
Making the claims is NOT fraud (in the legal sense). It's taking people's money based on trickery and deception that is fraud.

I don't know about "the rest of society" but the law and the courts say it is a crime to take people's money this way.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Psychics say all the time they get it wrong, NOBODY goes into a psychic reading expecting 100% accuracy, even the most ardent believer. How many times has Sylvia said she gets it wrong and given excuses?
When a person approaches a psychic and asks for psychic reading, THEY KNOW THIS, what they get is a psychic reading. You can't call that fraud (at least Im having a hard time seeing it as such).
You said this before, and it's still wrong. First, there are people who do indeed believe that their favorite psychic (or astrologer or whatever) is infallible.

Second, Sylvia will never admit she could be wrong when she's doing a reading. She will never say, "I'm 87% sure your child is dead. I think maybe perhaps possibly he's buried in the woods near two stupid rocks." It's a confidence game, which means she has to have the client's confidence. She has to appear certain, as if she gets her info from a direct pipeline. (The psychic perfection that Aeia espoused.) They both participate in role playing where they pretend the psychic is infallible. From her side, the role playing is conscious and intentional. From the side of the believer, to think or act differently would be to lack faith.

Sylvia's response (to skeptics who point out her frequent flagrant misses) is to say that only God is perfect. Or some other ad hoc excuse (she was getting a reading from someone else, or the information she gave in a reading that you can't confirm now will become clear to you in time).

But the believers do believe. Once they start opening their minds to the possibility that she might be a fake, the transition to ex-believer is a pretty quick one.

[panchov]

Dang, I'm at work so I can't really respond. I really wish you could convince me, I like what you're saying on a lot of levels, but I'm not there yet. I still hold adults are responsible. I might be 1/4 of the way there, if that cheeers you any!

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

No, I'm from Texas! That's my cat's name - Pancho Vea (i know thats not how you spell it, he was named after a coworker). My name is Linda.

Oh, my bad! :o Btw, welcome to the forum, Linda.

That link is very interesting. I live in Midtown Manhattan and there is this very scary psychic on my block. I always feel like she's giving me the heebeejeebee curse when I go by and refuse to come in (sometimes she tries to beckon me in between drags of her cigarette). Thank goodness I'm pretty sure there's really no such thing as a heebeejeebee curse, or I might have to spend a lot time walking around the block to avoid her.

There's a psychic just like that in Chelsea, a little off 20th street and I think 8th avenue. This woman in a nightgown and some sort of turban on her head and beckoning and waving at the kids from the local middle school.

[my_wan]

I keep reading your arguments and thinking yes, they're right, they're convincing me, but then something keeps holding me back.
There really is a difference between someone saying they're going to shoot you and you assuming there are bullets in the gun. This is a specific tangible statement.
But (one more time) - a psychic reading is gobelty gook. Psychics say all the time they get it wrong, NOBODY goes into a psychic reading expecting 100% accuracy, even the most ardent believer. How many times has Sylvia said she gets it wrong and given excuses?
When a person approaches a psychic and asks for psychic reading, THEY KNOW THIS, what they get is a psychic reading. You can't call that fraud (at least Im having a hard time seeing it as such).

If I say to you that you have a bad spirit attached to you constricting your heart. You will have a heart attack soon if you don't get my help. Is that not, in your words, "a specific tangible statement"? Most people past 35 are acutely aware of declining dexterity, which lends some fear to such a claim. Your second defense is that psychic readings are "gobelty gook" (true), and "THEY KNOW THIS". This is often not even close to true. I know about 8 people I could take for ever penny they have and another 14 or so that could be put in the same situation with some cheap mentalist tricks. When someone truly believes their kids are possessed by demons how hard do you think it is to take every penny they have, then some? Your last defense is that nobody expects 100% accuracy from a psychic. This is easy to overcome. Simply question your own reading and offer a test (mentalist trick) to verify it. If you want to say the trick should be illegal but not the claim then figure out how the trick was performed and prove it. Otherwise how is a made of claim any diferent from a made up trick? They are both false claims.

If you think these people must be mentally ill one of them is the Mayor of a town about 15 miles from here. He even got taken by a psychic dunning letter supposedly from England with some vague crap about how his family was treating him. Come to North Georgia and I'll introduce you to him. While here you can help me do some yard work for an old lady (volunteer) and you can hear about the demons that have and/or is after her kids. She lives next door to the Mayor. You can meet her kids to, most of them would make easy targets to.

Don't even try saying they deserve going broke and homeless because they were willing victims. Yes playing on peoples fears by whatever mechanism to extort money is criminal of the same kind as holding an unloaded gun to their head.

[ExMinister]

You said this before, and it's still wrong. First, there are people who do indeed believe that their favorite psychic (or astrologer or whatever) is infallible.

Second, Sylvia will never admit she could be wrong when she's doing a reading. She will never say, "I'm 87% sure your child is dead. I think maybe perhaps possibly he's buried in the woods near two stupid rocks." It's a confidence game, which means she has to have the client's confidence. She has to appear certain, as if she gets her info from a direct pipeline. (The psychic perfection that Aeia espoused.) They both participate in role playing where they pretend the psychic is infallible. From her side, the role playing is conscious and intentional. From the side of the believer, to think or act differently would be to lack faith.

Sylvia's response (to skeptics who point out her frequent flagrant misses) is to say that only God is perfect. Or some other ad hoc excuse (she was getting a reading from someone else, or the information she gave in a reading that you can't confirm now will become clear to you in time).

But the believers do believe. Once they start opening their minds to the possibility that she might be a fake, the transition to ex-believer is a pretty quick one.

Here were some of her favorites for her members and those who were closest to her, when their readings were astoundingly wrong:
- I can't read for people I care about becaues I'm too emotional about them
- I can't read for you because you're psychic, too, and psychics can't read well for other psychics.
- I can't read for you because you are a Mission Life Entity and mission life entities don't have detailed charts like everyone else.

Never once did I ever hear Sylvia say, "I'm only 87% accurate. Sorry about that." Never once have I ever heard Sylvia admit to having been wrong without an excuse. No, Sylvia sets herself up as the "best" psychic with a direct "pipeline" to God. People who fall for this con expect her to be accurate. Those are the expecations she deliberately sets up. Period.

Panchov, no one is arguing that adults aren't responsible for their own actions and what they choose to believe. But some cons are better than others, and Sylvia is very good at what she does. She stinks at cold-reading but she's excellent at the "confidence game." Does the fact that she is able to con people so successfully place the blame on the person being conned? Or shouldn't the con artist be exposed and stopped?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Dang, I'm at work so I can't really respond. I really wish you could convince me, I like what you're saying on a lot of levels, but I'm not there yet. I still hold adults are responsible. I might be 1/4 of the way there, if that cheeers you any!

Ditto what ExMinister said: no one is arguing that adults aren't responsible for the consequences of their actions.

What I'm saying is that whether the victim deserves or sympathy or not is irrelevant to the question of whether a psychic (or anyone else) has committed fraud (in the legal sense) or is a fraud (in the sense of being a fake).

To use your example, if your daughter dressed provocatively and wandered into the "wrong" part of town and was raped, the rapist is still guilty of rape. Your daughter's actions are no defense. I'm pretty sure they can't even be used as mitigating evidence.

[panchov]

This is true but rape is an act of violence done against someone's will. someone walking into a psychics office and paying them for a reading is a whole different thing (and therin lies my argument). I still want to read your above comments deeper when I get a chance though.

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is true but rape is an act of violence done against someone's will. someone walking into a psychics office and paying them for a reading is a whole different thing (and therin lies my argument). I still want to read your above comments deeper when I get a chance though.
The only crime that's the same as fraud is fraud.

I was pointing out that both are crimes, and in both cases the argument that "the victim asked for it" does not excuse the crime.

Your argument about the participation of the victim would at best result in shared liability in a civil case. It would still not make the psychic's actions not be fraud.

The fact that the victim walked to the psychic's place of business is completely irrelevant. What if I walked into my doctor's office and he punched me in the nose? What if he committed malpractice and caused me some damage? In both cases, my walking into his office does not exculpate him. So please abandon the argument that it matters that the victim willingly went to the con-artist's place of business.

If it is just that they willingly engaged the psychic, consider the Enron case. No one forced the investors to rely on the annual reports. No one forced the employees to work there and rely on their retirement plan that depended on Enron stock. This does not exculpate the crooks.

How do you feel about non-psychic fraudsters, like those who commit the fake lottery scams and so on? Surely people who fall for them are way too credulous. They should know better. The scam wouldn't have worked without the victim's participation and cooperation. (The initial spam e-mail is no different than a psychic's advertisement.) Does that mean the crooks aren't crooks?

[suicidesamurai]

The same can be said of virtually all scams, frauds and con-games. Especially if the victim's "participation" is believing that statements made by other people are true. Most scams involve situations that a reasonably knowledgeable person would doubt (too good to be true--as in, "You've just won a foreign lottery that you never even entered"). I agree that it's a sad commentary on people's critical thinking skills, but people who fall for these scams are victims, and the people who perpetrate them are crooks.

I'm buying a house right now, and I rely a lot on the statements made by other parties. If one of them is misrepresenting the facts and it causes me damages, I probably would have legal recourse to hold them liable. Are you suggesting that because I believed and relied on their statements that they can lie to me all they want and not be held liable?It's embarrassing to me, but my mother was taken in by a scam. She lost thousands of dollars and hundreds of work hours working for Nu Skin. I'm all for free-markets, being a libertarian, but I do not believe these companies should be allowed to exist. What they do is simply illegal, even if it is partly the person's fault for getting involved. She was brought into it by a friend, who said this should be a good way to make money. Of course the friend believes this. So then my mom tries to get other people involved. They don't know it's a scam. The company isn't going to tell them they won't make any money. You have to spend money to make money, they tell you. Like starting up your own business.

Most of the company's actual sales come from selling their products to their employees. You make money by bringing new people in. But you have to pay the company for those "leads". So you get a paycheck for a couple hundred bucks every month and you are paying the company one or two grand a month for leads. They tell you you will eventually make more so that there is a profit. Maybe 1% of them eventually make a profit, and that depends on how many people you can bring into the scam. This 1% is important to them. They have conventions in like Dallas or Houston and this 1% is there. They are there to show off their Porsche. They tell you you can get rich like them and buy a Porsche.

I did some research on this company when my mother kept losing money. I explained to her what was going on, how the company works, and how it is she will never make a profit. Some basic research would stop someone from doing this. But why do research? It's a real company. They are on the NYSE. The government wouldn't let them just go around ripping people off, would they?

[panchov]

The only crime that's the same as fraud is fraud.

I was pointing out that both are crimes, and in both cases the argument that "the victim asked for it" does not excuse the crime.

Your argument about the participation of the victim would at best result in shared liability in a civil case. It would still not make the psychic's actions not be fraud.

The fact that the victim walked to the psychic's place of business is completely irrelevant. What if I walked into my doctor's office and he punched me in the nose? What if he committed malpractice and caused me some damage? In both cases, my walking into his office does not exculpate him. So please abandon the argument that it matters that the victim willingly went to the con-artist's place of business.

If it is just that they willingly engaged the psychic, consider the Enron case. No one forced the investors to rely on the annual reports. No one forced the employees to work there and rely on their retirement plan that depended on Enron stock. This does not exculpate the crooks.

How do you feel about non-psychic fraudsters, like those who commit the fake lottery scams and so on? Surely people who fall for them are way too credulous. They should know better. The scam wouldn't have worked without the victim's participation and cooperation. (The initial spam e-mail is no different than a psychic's advertisement.) Does that mean the crooks aren't crooks?

But you didn't walk into your doctor's office and ask to be punched in the nose. People walk into psychic's offices and ask for psychic readings.

[Garrette]

But you didn't walk into your doctor's office and ask to be punched in the nose. People walk into psychic's offices and ask for psychic readings.1. What about JoetheJuggler's Enron analogy? The ones who cooked the books there should not be punished?

2. Will you answer my question about if it would be okay with you if I swindled one of your loved ones so long as they were emotionally satisified?

[panchov]

Here’s a hypothetical situation:
Guy goes to a prostitute and the place gets raided while he’s there.
In court, his defense is:
This woman isn’t a prostitute, she loves me. She tells me she loves me all the time. I only went to her because five of my best buddies told me that she is SO SPIRITUAL and she really really LOVES her clients. I’m only giving her money because I love her too. She’s wonderful she’s everything I ever wanted.
Well of course she always demands money up front, she can never remember my name and calls me “Hey you whose name begins with an M or J,” I have no relationship with her outside our paid relationship and no real reason whatsoever to believe anything she says other than that I want to, but that’s my defense!
What do you think will happen?

[RSLancastr]

Panchov, I am not clear as to your point ni all of this.

First, you are incorrect in saying that "we all as adults know that psychic readings are hoo hoo to begin with." You can bet that few if any of the people who pay Sylvia browne $75 for a 20-30 minute phone reading did so because they knew (or even suspected) that what they would get in return would be "hoo hoo."

As for your point that those who go to psychics do so willingly: what do you think of people who sell treatments which they fraudulently claim cure AIDS or cancer? People who go to these quacks do so willingly. Does this make what the quacks do any better? Most people go to these quacks out of desperation. Their doctors cannot help them, so they are turning to someone who claims to have the answer.

Many of the people who go to "psychics" do so out of desperation. They have suffered some tragedy (the death of a child or parent, an unexplained illness, etc). The police, or their minister, or their doctor has failed them. So they turn to someone who is promising them answers.

Both the quacks and the psychics are preying upon people's despair. And giving them nothing in return.

Yes, it "takes two" in these situations. Just like it takes two in all predator/prey situations. But just because those who are the prey, participate of their own free will does not in any way excuse the behavior of the predator.

[Big Les]

JoeTheJuggler and the others trying to explain here - thanks for reassuring me that I'm not going bonkers. I had this same conversation with panchov in the Lisa Williams thread where she emphasised the liability of the victim and what she saw as the impossibility of protecting the clients as reasons not to bother even trying to prevent psychics from trading or even people from visiting psychics. I understood and accepted her argument about the practical difficulties of securing convictions in many cases (though I also showed examples of psychics "getting theirs" despite this, as well as something of the theoretical legal framework in the UK for doing so, which has only recently improved.) But I just don't accept that becuase people seek out psychics, they must hold sole responsibility, nor that we shouldn't try to prevent psychics from operating by any legal means available to us.

What I really don't get is panchov's insistence that clients always know what they're getting themselves into - if they did, they would blow huge wads of money on them, disrupt their grieving process, continue to buy into magical thinking etc etc.

IOW, if psychic services really were all about entertainment (rather than just using this as a cover) ie we all knew or at least suspected they were bunk, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. In fact, there are already "psychics" that do this and customers that pay to see them - they're called "mentalists"!

Finally, panchov believes that psychics might exist, based upon no evidence whatsoever. And so any assessment she makes of an individual psychic is based upon her personal "BS detector" and how good a showman/woman the psychic is. Subjective plausibility. She assumes everyone else ought to have the same ability to discern fakes. Unfortunately, it's pretty obvious that they don't; everyone has their own subjective assessment based upon past experience. As she was asked- how would she determine a real psychic from a plausible fake? Why should she assume, if she could, that anyone else is equipped to do that, and if they aren't, why they deserve to shoulder all the blame for their honest mistake in being duped?

panchov, that's what scepticism is for; it's not about what seems plausible to you, it's starting from the assumption that the person making the claim (the psychic in this case), needs to be able to prove that they can do what they say. What they claim ought to be testable, and yet none of them in 100 years has been able to do it. It's reasonable to suggest that until at least one of them can demonstrate real abilities, or admit that they are just cold reading (or being unknowingly "intuitive"), none of them should be allowed to take people's money and what they do should be seen as de facto fraud, regardless of how willing their clients are.

That's how I, and I think quite a few other sceptics see it.

[panchov]

Ok, I think we're getting somewhere here.
The psychic needs to be able to prove what they are doing is real. THis is the heart of the matter. The person who visits a psychic KNOWS they can't prove it. When you go to a doctor, you know what they are offering you can be proved or disproved (most of the time anyway).
Thus, my argument that when someone goes to a psychic and asks for a reading (which they know is something that is murky and unprovable) and they are given a reading, they are given what they asked for so it's not fraud.
And I never said you should stop trying to stop psychics. By all means, whatever legal means you have available, try to stop them. You just won't get anywhere because people will continue to go to psychics and ask for murky unprovable readings.

See what I'm saying?

[Garrette]

I guess I can put panchov in that column marked "People Who Won't Answer My Question."

I'm not surprised. Disappointed, but not surprised.

[-Fran-]

The person who visits a psychic KNOWS they can't prove it. When you go to a doctor, you know what they are offering you can be proved or disproved (most of the time anyway).
Thus, my argument that when someone goes to a psychic and asks for a reading (which they know is something that is murky and unprovable) and they are given a reading, they are given what they asked for so it's not fraud.



But far from all people know they can't prove it, far from all people are aware it is 'murky and unprovable'. You yourself said somewhere that you actually believe there are real psychics (apart from the fake ones that you think should be obvious to all). So, not even you know they can't prove it. If you really think there actually are real psychics and that you can distuingish them from fake ones, then there really isn't any difference between you, and all these people you think should be held responsible for their lack of singling out the fake ones.

Do you believe there are in fact real psychics among all the fake ones? And if you do, what would the difference be, to us here, between you and the duped people you are talking about?

[panchov]

1. What about JoetheJuggler's Enron analogy? The ones who cooked the books there should not be punished?

2. Will you answer my question about if it would be okay with you if I swindled one of your loved ones so long as they were emotionally satisified?

Well gosh I don't want you to be dissapointed in me, so here goes:

1. Enron has nothing to do with psychics and I've said several times that anybody who engages in "earthly" fraud should be prosecuted. If they say they're going to burn money to get rid of curse and instead they use it to buy a car, that is fraud and they should be prosecuted!

2. This question is not black and white.

When my grandma was old and sick we kept some stuff from her because we knew (a) there was no way she would find out unless we told her and (b) it would do nothing but cause her pain before her eminent death.
But the other part of this question is – are my loved ones fully functioning members of society who pay their own way and make their own decisions (by this I mean are they capable of making decisions for themselves?) – if the answer is yes and if they choose to go to a psychic and hand their money over to them and to believe them, do I have a right to try to explain to them that I think the psychic is a fraud? Yes, I think I do.
Do I have the right to force them to stop making this choice for themselves because I don’t like they are finding comfort in this way? NO!
If the psychic they are seeing is doing something so egregious that I have legal means to stop them, then I have the right to do that, but other than that, this is a choice adults are making and I have to leave them alone with it.
(Another analogy I’m brought up before – we’re Catholic, my mom gives money to the church – can I claim the church is committing fraud because they take her money by saying things like the host is turned into the body of Christ when nobody can prove that that is so?)
So the answer is, no it won’t be ok with me if you commit fraud to make my family happy if the way you were doing it was causing them more harm than good, but I would say if I tried to tell them and they insisted on believing, that is what they want in their life and I would be stuck with only the options the law leaves me. Adults want what the psychic gives them, comfort and guidance. They don’t want proof, they don’t need it. Psychics aren’t frauds because they can’t prove what they are doing.

[remirol]

we were having this discussion about whats her name from england the fake psychic and I kept arguing that if an adult wants to go to a psychic, you can't claim the psychic is a fraud because we all as adults know that psychic readings are hoo hoo to begin with. The VICTIM is is an active willing participant in their own victimization.


This quote contains an assumption which I suspect is inherently contained in many usual counterarguments: that "we all, as adults, know that psychics are hoo hoo". Specifically, there's nothing I can reference to show that any given adult can reliably be assumed to have been told during their life that psychics are bunk; contrast with being able to assume that someone knows the alphabet or basic math (2+2=?), which are things taught in all primary schools during childhood.

If we can't assume that all adults have been accurately informed about this, then it follows that some weren't accurately informed, and DO honestly believe -- and there is where the fraud comes in. Those who believe are paying for a service that cannot deliver on what it promises; hence, fraud.

(I think this neatly avoids the trap of using as example people who "know better" but fool themselves and go anyway, in effect paying for hope.)

[panchov]

They may not have been told per say, as an adult, I would argue that if you are going to lift your feet up and walk yourself into a psychic's office, you have a self-obligation to know what you are getting into. See that's the whole problem. You guys all think people are VICTIMS VICTIMS VICTIMS and have no responsibility whatsoever for whom they deal with. I just differ on that opinion. I still have sympathy for people who get tricked though, especially when they are emotionally distraught.

Their error is one of human misthinking, we all do it sometime or another. THe psychic's crime is often one of malice or greed which is of course way worse.

[Garrette]

Well gosh I don't want you to be dissapointed in me, so here goes:Much obliged. Disappointment is so ... disappointing.

1. Enron has nothing to do with psychicsThe analogy is valid. You seem to have the habit of dismissing any anology which demonstrates that psychics are frauds, regardless of the willigness of the victims.

and I've said several times that anybody who engages in "earthly" fraud should be prosecuted.I've caught that. What you have not done is explain where and how you draw the line. That is common among those who say there are both real psychics and fake psychics; questions regarding how the two are distinguished get ignored or answered with hollow comments.


If they say they're going to burn money to get rid of curse and instead they use it to buy a car, that is fraud and they should be prosecuted!I agree. What if they actually burn the money?


2. This question is not black and white. As I stated it, it is. You needlessly complicate it in your answer. Perhaps because you do not see it is needless; perhaps because you don't want to give a simple answer. I don't know.


When my grandma was old and sick we kept some stuff from her because we knew (a) there was no way she would find out unless we told her and (b) it would do nothing but cause her pain before her eminent death.Okay. Irrelevant, but okay.


But the other part of this question is – are my loved ones fully functioning members of society who pay their own way and make their own decisions (by this I mean are they capable of making decisions for themselves?) – if the answer is yes and if they choose to go to a psychic and hand their money over to them and to believe them, do I have a right to try to explain to them that I think the psychic is a fraud? Yes, I think I do.I agree.


Do I have the right to force them to stop making this choice for themselves because I don’t like they are finding comfort in this way? NO!I agree and never suggested otherwise.


If the psychic they are seeing is doing something so egregious that I have legal means to stop them, then I have the right to do that,"Egregious?" So it's not just a matter of fraud, but it has to be "egregious" fraud? Where is this line drawn?


but other than that, this is a choice adults are making and I have to leave them alone with it.No you don't. You are free to make your opinion known. You are free to make your disagreement known. You are free to push for prosecution if laws are broken, and you are free to pass for legislation to stop fraud if the required laws are not yet in place.


(Another analogy I’m brought up before – we’re Catholic, my mom gives money to the church – can I claim the church is committing fraud because they take her money by saying things like the host is turned into the body of Christ when nobody can prove that that is so?)Can you claim it? Of course you can. Can you prove it? Highly unlikely. Can you object in other ways? Of course. Can you let your mother know you think she is wasting her money? Of course to that, too. You can also choose to let your mother be to make her choices.


So the answer is, no it won’t be ok with me if you commit fraud to make my family happy if the way you were doing it was causing them more harm than good,And here's where you really add unnecessary complications. My scenario was clear. Your family gets emotional satisfaction from my actions. Your family believes I have helped them. Your family gets past a period of overwhelming grief. All your family loses is the money that your family agreed--as knowing adults--to pay.

And again you add another line to be drawn: How do you determine for your family whether I am causing more harm than good?


but I would say if I tried to tell them and they insisted on believing, that is what they want in their life and I would be stuck with only the options the law leaves me.I agree. I'm asking if it's it's okay with you morally. Or would you think I'm scum?


Adults want what the psychic gives them, comfort and guidance. They don’t want proof, they don’t need it.I agree. Well said.


Psychics aren’t frauds because they can’t prove what they are doing.They aren't proven frauds if the fraud can't be proven. A murderer who is not convicted may not be a murderer in the eyes of the law, but he is a murderer nonetheless.

[panchov]

It's embarrassing to me, but my mother was taken in by a scam. She lost thousands of dollars and hundreds of work hours working for Nu Skin. I'm all for free-markets, being a libertarian, but I do not believe these companies should be allowed to exist. What they do is simply illegal, even if it is partly the person's fault for getting involved. She was brought into it by a friend, who said this should be a good way to make money. Of course the friend believes this. So then my mom tries to get other people involved. They don't know it's a scam. The company isn't going to tell them they won't make any money. You have to spend money to make money, they tell you. Like starting up your own business.

Most of the company's actual sales come from selling their products to their employees. You make money by bringing new people in. But you have to pay the company for those "leads". So you get a paycheck for a couple hundred bucks every month and you are paying the company one or two grand a month for leads. They tell you you will eventually make more so that there is a profit. Maybe 1% of them eventually make a profit, and that depends on how many people you can bring into the scam. This 1% is important to them. They have conventions in like Dallas or Houston and this 1% is there. They are there to show off their Porsche. They tell you you can get rich like them and buy a Porsche.

I did some research on this company when my mother kept losing money. I explained to her what was going on, how the company works, and how it is she will never make a profit. Some basic research would stop someone from doing this. But why do research? It's a real company. They are on the NYSE. The government wouldn't let them just go around ripping people off, would they?

Again, I sympathize with this. It's horrible, BUT
If your Mom was going to buy a Subway franchise, would she not look into it before she bought it? Would she just walk into the office and hand her money over to the person w/o doing any research at all? If the answer is yes, your mom needs some financial education, even though subway is a very respectable company.
If she was going to buy a restuarant from her very best friend for life, would she not look into the finances first? If your mom looked into it and the friend cooked the books to trick her, that's fraud. If your mom didn't do her research and just believed her, well that's very sad and also VERY UNDERSTANDABLE, but your mom is still partially responsible for what happened to her. Am I wrong?

[remirol]

They may not have been told per say (sic)

OK. So they may never have been told, thus they know nothing about it.

as an adult, I would argue that if you are going to lift your feet up and walk yourself into a psychic's office, you have a self-obligation to know what you are getting into.


Right. See, when I go to the auto repair place, I ask them to tell me what I'm getting into. Things like "What will you give me for $X?" They say things like "I will change your oil and rotate your tires." Then, they do it, and I pay them $X.

To someone who doesn't have a bias against psychics in the first place, why do psychics look any different from the auto repair place? You go in, you say "What will you give me for $X?" They say "I'll talk to your dead father and you can ask him questions through me." But it's bunk; they can do no such thing. So: fraud.

The hypothetical person without existing anti-psychic bias is simply a way to illustrate the problem: psychics cannot do what they charge money for doing, but they take the money anyway and lie about doing it. This is fraud, IMO.


See that's the whole problem. You guys all think people are VICTIMS VICTIMS VICTIMS and have no responsibility whatsoever for whom they deal with. I just differ on that opinion. I still have sympathy for people who get tricked though, especially when they are emotionally distraught.


People who know what they're getting into deserve to lose the money. But there are people out there who do NOT know what they're getting into, and this is where the problem comes in.

Their error is one of human misthinking, we all do it sometime or another. THe psychic's crime is often one of malice or greed which is of course way worse.

Er, which is why we should go after the psychics, right?

[Garrette]

They may not have been told per say, as an adult, I would argue that if you are going to lift your feet up and walk yourself into a psychic's office, you have a self-obligation to know what you are getting into. See that's the whole problem. You guys all think people are VICTIMS VICTIMS VICTIMS and have no responsibility whatsoever for whom they deal with. I just differ on that opinion. I still have sympathy for people who get tricked though, especially when they are emotionally distraught.

Their error is one of human misthinking, we all do it sometime or another. THe psychic's crime is often one of malice or greed which is of course way worse.You have objected a few times when you have felt others have not read your posts and understood that you agree there are fake psychics.

I have to object now that you are not reading what is being said to you. Even if you irrefutably demonstrate that the people who visit psychics were 100% negligent in the exercise of caveat emptor, it does not change the fact of the psychic's culpability. The two issues are separate.

[panchov]

Garrette, I don't want to requote your whole thing here, ti's kinda long. I think that you and I are agreeing, you just don't see it. THe only thing we disagree on is what constitutes fraud. When you ask if I would think you are scum (do i think Syliva is scum, YES YES YES YES YES YES). Do I think she's commiting fraud, no, she's giving them what they ask for! That's where we disagree.

Of course you can keep harranging your relative over and over and over about you not approving of what they are doing but it most likely wouldn't do any good and to tell the truth I think you would be interfering with their right to make their own decisions. I understand why you would be motivated to do that, but it doesn't change the fact that unless they are incapable of making thier own decisions, the ARE capable of making their own decisions.

[panchov]

By the way, speaking of not answering questions, nobody answered my question about he prostitute.

In that instance, is she guilty of fraud and is the man totally without responsibility, or as an adult, would than man be expected to have a functional definition of what a prostitute is and an ability to judge from the cues he is getting that maybe she's not telling him the truth?

[panchov]

I'm curious about what James Randi or Michael Shermer would say about this.

[Garrette]

We do agree on some of it, panchov, but our disagreement is more than simply what constitutes fraud.

Your argument implies a zero-sum game for moral culpability (I'll leave out legal culpability for now which is zero sum, at least on the civil side). If the sitter did not exercise due diligience, then the psychic is off the hook, regardless.

My argument, and that of others here, I think, is that it is not a zero-sum game. Shame, shame, shame, on the sitter who walks willfully ignorant into the psychic's lair; I will shake my finger at her all day. I will not, however, use the sitter's negligence as a dispensation for the psychic.

It gets back to how you distinguish between legitimate psychics and fake psychics. If one is a fake psychic, then everyone who visits that psychic is to blame because they all failed to discover that the psychic is a fake.
You, apparently, can tell which psychics are fake and which are not. Please tell me how you do this.


By the way, speaking of not answering questions, nobody answered my question about he prostitute.

In that instance, is she guilty of fraud and is the man totally without responsibility, or as an adult, would than man be expected to have a functional definition of what a prostitute is and an ability to judge from the cues he is getting that maybe she's not telling him the truth?Okay, I'll answer.

It's not fraud. The laws on prostitution, while perhaps morally questionable, are legally sound. The prostitute is guilty of prostitution; her client is guilty of solicitation (terms may vary juridiction to jurisdiction).


Edit to Add: This analogy does not help your case, nor does any other analogy regarding fraud.

X defrauds Y. Y proves fraud. X is convicted. Regardless of Y exercised due diligence or not, Y is not charged with anything, nor does any silliness, stupidity, or negligence on Y's part reduce X's conviction.

[Garrette]

I'm curious about what James Randi or Michael Shermer would say about this.About psychic frauds or about prostitution?

[panchov]

I'm not asking you if she's guilty of prostitution, I’m asking you if the man is responsible for his actions because he believes what the woman is saying.

Btw, while I totally disagree with the notion that Sylvia et al are frauds, I would be happy to call them prostitutes (if we could get a legal definition of prostitute that has to do with selling your moral fibers instead of your body).

Also, I have NEVER EVER EVER EVER said that the psychic is morally not responsible for their behavior because of anything the customer asked for. THey are totally responsible for the immoral abuse of vulnerable people. I don't however consider that fraud, especially in the legal sense. If you change the laws to where being a psychic IS illegal and Sylvia et al are arrested and put in jail, I will say VERY GOOD FOR YOU! Now we can call that fraud because that's what the law is calling it and LET'S PUT THEM ALL IN JAIL.

Not only that, but I find their behavior so horrifying that if there was a way to help get such laws passed, I would do it.

[panchov]

About psychic frauds or about prostitution?

About whether the customer bears any responsibilty for being taken in by the psychic.

[Garrette]

I'm not asking you if she's guilty of prostitution, I’m asking you if the man is responsible for his actions because he believes what the woman is saying.Actually, you asked this:

In that instance, is she guilty of fraud and is the man totally without responsibilityI answered the first part by telling you she is not guilty of fraud; she is guilty of prostitution.

I answered the second part by saying that the man is guilty of solicitation. But to play the game a little more, if the man truly and honestly believes he is in love with the woman, he is probably still guilty of solicitation based on the "reasonable man" standard that a reasonable person would not believe a prostitute under the circumstances you described. Alternatively, the man could be found mentally incompetent.


Btw, while I totally disagree with the notion that Sylvia et al are frauds, I would be happy to call them prostitutes (if we could get a legal definition of prostitute that has to do with selling your moral fibers instead of your body).How on earth could you possibly justify that? They are guilty of fraud (under the assumption that their psychic abilities are not real). Prostitution does not enter into it. They deceive with the intent to increase their advantage at the expense of the deceived. They misrepresent their abilities in purusit of the fraud.

It's not really a debatable topic in the abstract. Whether or not it's enforceable or of sufficient interest to warrant enforcement is another matter entirely.


Also, I have NEVER EVER EVER EVER said that the psychic is morally not responsible for their behavior because of anything the customer asked for. THey are totally responsible for the immoral abuse of vulnerable people.Okay.


I don't however consider that fraud, especially in the legal sense.It is fraud in the legal sense.


If you change the laws to where being a psychic IS illegal and Sylvia et al are arrested and put in jail, I will say VERY GOOD FOR YOU! Now we can call that fraud because that's what the law is calling it and LET'S PUT THEM ALL IN JAIL.The laws aren't really the issue. Enforcement is. That will only follow public interest and outrage.


Not only that, but I find their behavior so horrifying that if there was a way to help get such laws passed, I would do it.How many times have you written your mayor, city council, state representative, governor, congressperson?

[Garrette]

About whether the customer bears any responsibilty for being taken in by the psychic.I have emailed Randi several times and have always received a response. I understand not everyone does, though. If you are really interested, I suggest you email him.

I have never emailed Michael Shermer, so I do not know about him, but I see nothing preventing you from emailing him.

[Showmeproof]

That link is very interesting. I live in Midtown Manhattan and there is this very scary psychic on my block. I always feel like she's giving me the heebeejeebee curse when I go by and refuse to come in (sometimes she tries to beckon me in between drags of her cigarette). Thank goodness I'm pretty sure there's really no such thing as a heebeejeebee curse, or I might have to spend a lot time walking around the block to avoid her.

I live in queens. Where in midtown is she located? We should pay her a visit lol

[panchov]

Well we're clearly not getting anywhere and aren't going to convince each other.
The prostitute thing was a bit metaphorical, I think I've just gotten you too riled up to see that!

[Garrette]

I'm not riled at all, panchov, and while I am far from perfect and sometimes miss the point, I do not think this is one of those times.

[panchov]

I live in queens. Where in midtown is she located? We should pay her a visit lol

I'm really a little scared of her even though I don't think curses exist. She has a dangerous air about her! If you come with me, I'll go though.

Right by Times Square.

[panchov]

I'm not riled at all, panchov, and while I am far from perfect and sometimes miss the point, I do not think this is one of those times.

Well I'm glad you're not riled becuase sometimes I can be riling!

So my only other question is, if she is commiting fraud, why is she (meaning Sylvia, et al) not in jail? You can stop answering though if you think this will just send us in more circles. I still haven't been able to get to some of those earlier posts which looked very interesting and thought provoking.

[Garrette]

Well I'm glad you're not riled becuase sometimes I can be riling!So can I, but my skin is very thick.


So my only other question is, if she is commiting fraud, why is she (meaning Sylvia, et al) not in jail?No enforcement. Why no enforcement? Few or no complaints from parties with standing to District Attorney offices already overworked with cases they see as more pressing. Law enforcement and criminal prosecution are done on limited budgets with limited resources and limited time. They pick their battles. Most people don't know about Sylvia and her ilk, at least not in detail. Of those who do, they either don't know enough to be convinced of the fraudulence or they consider it a near-victimless crime of low importance.


You can stop answering though if you think this will just send us in more circles. I still haven't been able to get to some of those earlier posts which looked very interesting and thought provoking.I have only occasionally been in the position you are in here (a single person debating a multitude of others who appear to be playing tag-team). It's hard, and quite understandable if you don't answer every question.

[JoeTheJuggler]

But you didn't walk into your doctor's office and ask to be punched in the nose. People walk into psychic's offices and ask for psychic readings.
They most certainly do not walk into a psychic's office to be lied to. (Again, can we leave off the "walking into the office" bit? It really is irrelevant.)

The crime is taking their money by deception. Psychics deceive their clients.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here’s a hypothetical situation:
Guy goes to a prostitute and the place gets raided while he’s there.
In court, his defense is:
This woman isn’t a prostitute, she loves me. She tells me she loves me all the time. I only went to her because five of my best buddies told me that she is SO SPIRITUAL and she really really LOVES her clients. I’m only giving her money because I love her too. She’s wonderful she’s everything I ever wanted.
Well of course she always demands money up front, she can never remember my name and calls me “Hey you whose name begins with an M or J,” I have no relationship with her outside our paid relationship and no real reason whatsoever to believe anything she says other than that I want to, but that’s my defense!
What do you think will happen?

I don't see how this is analogous. Are you wondering how to define the crime of prostitution? Or the crime of using a prostitute? How does that relate to our discussion about the relevance (or lack thereof) of the victim's culpability in assessing whether or not a crime has been committed?

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, I'm from Texas! That's my cat's name - Pancho Vea (i know thats not how you spell it, he was named after a coworker). My name is Linda.
Great name! The cat's, that is--well Linda is pretty good too as long as you are linda (pretty), and it's not false advertising! ;)

[panchov]

Great name! The cat's, that is--well Linda is pretty good too as long as you are linda (pretty), and it's not false advertising! ;)

Depends on who you ask (try my mom, she'll say I am)!

[-Fran-]

Depends on who you ask (try my mom, she'll say I am)!

Pretty? :)

Panchov, I know it's not easy to keep track of all people spurting questions here, I understand if you'll skip a few, but I really want to know. Do you actually believe in psychics, only that some are fakes, but that some actually are genuine? And how come then that you're not at the same risk as being had by a psychic as all the others who are duped? I just feel this is kind of essential.

[panchov]

(Again, can we leave off the "walking into the office" bit? It really is irrelevant.)

The crime is taking their money by deception. Psychics deceive their clients.

See I can't agree with you here - however, I respect your right to disagree!
I would even go so far as to say that (for some, maybe not all) they would much rather have the psychic say to them that Mom is happy in heaven no longer a bitter alcoholic and is waving hi, then to hear nobody really knows what happens when we die and good luck with that.

[JoeTheJuggler]

THey are totally responsible for the immoral abuse of vulnerable people. I don't however consider that fraud, especially in the legal sense. If you change the laws to where being a psychic IS illegal and Sylvia et al are arrested and put in jail, I will say VERY GOOD FOR YOU! Now we can call that fraud because that's what the law is calling it and LET'S PUT THEM ALL IN JAIL.

The law already calls it fraud when someone takes money by deceit or trickery.

Many psychics have been found guilty of fraud. (I suspect few of them have been jailed because, as you pointed out, it's not a violent crime, and only the most egregious non-violent criminals whose crimes aren't drug-related end up doing time.) That Sylvia Browne hasn't been prosecuted (yet) doesn't mean that taking people's money by lying and trickery is legal. ( I already addressed this point, and mentioned that RSLancaster has answered it more completely somewhere. By your reasoning, if one murderer has not been prosecuted for whatever reason, then murder must not really be illegal.) Nor does it follow that the victim's participation exculpates the fraudster.

By the way, I totally disagree with your statement in the OP (my bolding), "The VICTIM is is an active willing participant in their own victimization." No one goes to a psychic wanting to be defrauded. I agree the victim's participation (as with any fraud) is necessary, but no one wants to be defrauded. People who go to a psychic willingly give their money thinking they are going to have a curse lifted or get a glimpse into their future, or learn how to be healthy and wealthy and find true love, or communicate with a deceased relative, and so on. If they got those things as promised, there would be no fraud.

I'm surprised you haven't brought up the notion of casino gambling.

That business is predicated (mostly) on people not realizing that the odds are stacked against them. However, casinos cannot lie and they cannot cheat. To do so would be fraud. (And would probably violate specific state gaming laws too.) If they say their slots pay out 98% when they actually only pay out 95%, they would be subject to legal consequences. If they use loaded dice at their crap tables or a rigged roulette wheel, they would be committing crimes.

What they're banking on is that people think they're going to beat the odds. Each one of them thinks they'll be the one to catch a one-in-a-million jackpot. The casinos are allowed to tout their winners--and they do so in a big way so people are disproportionately more aware of the few winners than they are of the many many losers, but again, the casinos cannot lie and deceive to take your money.

[JoeTheJuggler]

See I can't agree with you here - however, I respect your right to disagree!
I would even go so far as to say that (for some, maybe not all) they would much rather have the psychic say to them that Mom is happy in heaven no longer a bitter alcoholic and is waving hi, then to hear nobody really knows what happens when we die and good luck with that.
So? They would rather it be true than not. That's the issue. I'm sure if you asked them if they just want to hear something nice that they know is false, they'd agree that it's not worth paying money for.

Besides, the law is clear--taking someone's money through lying and deception is fraud. What the victim wants is irrelevant--but I was just pointing out that they don't want to be cheated any more than I want my doctor to punch me in the nose.

[ExMinister]

THe only thing we disagree on is what constitutes fraud. When you ask if I would think you are scum (do i think Syliva is scum, YES YES YES YES YES YES). Do I think she's commiting fraud, no, she's giving them what they ask for! That's where we disagree.

If fraud by definition indicates intentional deception, then Sylvia IS committing fraud. And it makes no sense whatsoever to say that these people are getting what they are asking for - That would mean they are asking to be deceived. They are not. Same goes for the Enron scenario, and anyone's elderly mother who is taken in by any sort of monetary scheme.

Some people may be smart enough about car repair to not be taken in by auto scams, some people might have the business savvy to spot a business scam, some people may know from personal experience or otherwise that psychics are con artists. Some people won't and don't. Does that mean it's their own fault if they are taken advantage of? It would be nice if we all had the mental agility to be forewarned and forearmed in all areas at all times, but many of us don't. Which is why there are laws to help protect us. It's why people come forward, when they spot these kinds of scams, to be heard.

[panchov]

Well if what sylvia is doing is illegal, we should all start screaming at the press until she's arrested. How's that for coming to an agreement. (I only keep picking on her becuase of been reading on this site about some of the stuff she does that I had no idea she was doing, and I now think she should be hung by her toes over a fire ant hill and slathered with honey!)

[ExMinister]

So? They would rather it be true than not. That's the issue. I'm sure if you asked them if they just want to hear something nice that they know is false, they'd agree that it's not worth paying money for.

Besides, the law is clear--taking someone's money through lying and deception is fraud. What the victim wants is irrelevant--but I was just pointing out that they don't want to be cheated any more than I want my doctor to punch me in the nose.

I agree. I don't know of anyone, even in the worst throes of grief, who is looking willingly for deception. They may be looking for hope, and more vulnerable to the fradulent claims of someone like Sylvia Browne, as a result, but they absolutely are not looking to be deceived.

[panchov]

If fraud by definition indicates intentional deception, then Sylvia IS committing fraud. And it makes no sense whatsoever to say that these people are getting what they are asking for - That would mean they are asking to be deceived. They are not. Same goes for the Enron scenario, and anyone's elderly mother who is taken in by any sort of monetary scheme.

Some people may be smart enough about car repair to not be taken in by auto scams, some people might have the business savvy to spot a business scam, some people may know from personal experience or otherwise that psychics are con artists. Some people won't and don't. Does that mean it's their own fault if they are taken advantage of? It would be nice if we all had the mental agility to be forewarned and forearmed in all areas at all times, but many of us don't. Which is why there are laws to help protect us. It's why people come forward, when they spot these kinds of scams, to be heard.


The reason I'm Having trouble with this Enron comparison is that very specific quantifiable promises were made by Enron. This was not a case where the Enron officials got up and said, “We’re going to offer you something that starts with a p.” (at which the employees would have all had to respond PENSION). This is totally different.

Psychics say, I see an old lady standing over you and the customer DECIDES that that's their GRANDMA. Yes they are participants.

[-Fran-]

Psychics say, I see an old lady standing over you and the customer DECIDES that that's their GRANDMA. Yes they are participants.

And when you fall for the same tricks (only better than averagely executed) when you visit a psychic you think is genuine - that makes you a.... ??

If you do believe in psychics as such... do you?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well if what sylvia is doing is illegal, we should all start screaming at the press until she's arrested. How's that for coming to an agreement. (I only keep picking on her becuase of been reading on this site about some of the stuff she does that I had no idea she was doing, and I now think she should be hung by her toes over a fire ant hill and slathered with honey!)

I agree wholeheartedly!