I was wondering if anyone has ever tried this. If a skeptic went to a medium and was fed the usual lies, what's to stop them from then taking said medium to court? The medium would then be forced to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that their powers were genuine, or lose the case.
This could then open the flood gates, as we all know that one medium after the other would be thrown to the dogs. Character profiles would be done to see how incredulous their past claims were (Sally Morgan springs to mind); since most so-called mediums only fabricate a history detailed enough to convince a believer, they would be far from water tight.
This would be a great way to discredit mediums, and stop them from conducting their shameful practises.
Any thoughts?
Technically, the Fraudulent Mediums Act should be more than sufficient to stop these people.
However, in practice, it is rarely upheld. I doubt you'd make much of a dent suing them one by one, and it would be rather costly.
It would only be costly to them if you won, which would be more than likely. One person couldn't do it, but it only takes one high publicity case to do it, and like I said, the floods gates would open.
We live in a society that's more then happy to sue anyone if they can make some quick cash out of it. It just needs one landmark case.
What would you sue them for?Originally Posted by The_Corinthian
They wouldn't be forced to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt.The medium would then be forced to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that their powers were genuine, or lose the case.
In a civil case, the standard of proof would be the balance of probability, and the onus would be on the plaintiff to make their case*. In a criminal case, it would be up to the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
*Unless you could come up with some way of suing the psychic for libel, in which case the burden would be on them to prove their defence.
A bit tricky to bring a prosecution other than through the authorities though:(4) No proceedings for an offence under this section shall be, brought in England or Wales except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The problem is, what damages/compensation would you be suing them for?
Not only do you have to prove on balance of probability that they were lying but that they also caused you 'damage'
You could sue for the 'consultation' fee. It might be worth it if the fee was high. But when faced with court action a psychic would probably refund this anyway. And IIRC, it costs £30 to put in a claim in the Small Claims Court, I don't know the current psychic rate, but apart from the celebrity psychics, I would have thought it wasn't much higher. As costs are rarely awarded in the Small Claims Court, you are going to break even at best.
You could sue if you acted on advice and it cost you money, for example if a psychic told you to quit your job because you are going to get a better one. But, what psychic ever gives such specific advice? It is usually 'I see new and exciting work challenges ahead'. You would also have to prove that they actually told you this, otherwise it is your word against theirs. And the judge would also consider whether it was reasonable for you to act on the psychic's advice. Unless you could be shown to be particularly vulnerable and the psychic knew this, the judge would likely expect you to show some common sense before acting on a detrimental course of action on the say so of a psychic. Especially, as you suggest, it was a skeptic who visited the psychic.
BTW, the balance of proof in a civil case is not 'beyond reasonable doubt' - it is 'on the balance of probability'.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me to be entirely unfeasible.
There may be instances where civil action is possible, but not where a skeptic visits a psychic.
I have in fact tried this. I approached the DPP about a particular medium's claims, and was fobbed off to go to the relevant police department with any criminal claims. There was some faffing about trying to work out if that was the police local to me, or the medium, but in the end, no one wanted to touch it and I gave up jumping through hoops.
So that leaves it up to you guys. I think some people really believe they can are psychic. I have and never have had any problem with them. It's a case of buyer beware. It's the ones claiming to solve mystery police cases that I have a problem with. Those poor families. How desperate they must be to resort to asking a medium for help. And then if nothing comes of it - is all hope lost?
Hopefully not all hope is lost.
A good example of what can come from reacting after the fact to medium interference in missing persons cases is found at Kelly's blog:
http://voice4themissing.blogspot.com/
And in particular her section on psychics:
http://voice4themissing.blogspot.com...chics-and.html
Kelly Jolkowski has picked herself up and channelled her anger and her hope into very successful ventures. Children have been found, thanks in large part to her efforts, and laws have been passed to assist families and law enforcement.
I considered parallelling her work with a UK version, but unfortunately have not yet acheived a position to devote appropriate time and energy to it.
(Sorry for re-posting links, but I strongly feel they apply here, and I don't think that Kelly's site can be publicised enough)
I read the links. So where are all the psychics who could help find these people? I guess they are not high profile enough. It’s like I said on another forum when someone asked a God question. Even if I learned that God did exist, I don’t care because I have seen too much suffering to give him the time of day. The same goes for psychics and mediums.
Fraud.
They'd be forced to prove that what they said was the truth. The only reasonable way to do this would be to do a demonstation of thier "powers" under test conditions.They wouldn't be forced to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt.
Last edited by The_Corinthian; 13th October 2007 at 04:57 PM.
The mental scaring caused by pretending to be speaking to a dead relative, where in reality it is nothing but lies. Claims of severe depression, confusion, etc.. It's the sort of thing that people get sued for all the time, and for usually much less severe crimes.
That's a crime. To prosecute for fraud you'd need to prove your case beyond reasonable doubt. The medium wouldn't need to prove anything.
Assuming that you mean misrepresentation, you would need to establish on the balance of probablity that they knew that what they told you wasn't true. You would also need to prove that their misrepresentation caused you some actual harm.
No, you would be the one who would have to proveThey'd be forced to prove that what they said was the truth. The only reasonable way to do this would be to do a demonstation of thier "powers" under test conditions.
a) that their powers weren't real, and
b) that they knew this when they gave the reading.
I believe that's what I've said from the start.
Sorry but they would have to prove it. If they are charging for a service they can't actually provide, that is fraudulent. Proving they caused you emotional grief would be a walk in the park, people get sued for that every day.The medium wouldn't need to prove anything.
Assuming that you mean misrepresentation, you would need to establish on the balance of probablity that they knew that what they told you wasn't true. You would also need to prove that their misrepresentation caused you some actual harm.
What's the difference between proving their powers are real and proving they aren't?No, you would be the one who would have to prove
a) that their powers weren't real, and
b) that they knew this when they gave the reading.
The idea that they can get off the hook by pretending they didn't realise they didn't have any powers is ludicrous. The burden of proof is entirely on the psychic to prove that they can provide the service they are charging for. This applies to any business, otherwise everyone could make outrageous claims about their services, and just claim naivety if they got caught.
No, what you said was that the medium would have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt:I believe that's what I've said from the start.That's not the same as you having to prove your case beyond reasonable doubt, is it?
You would have to prove that they didn't believe their powers were genuine, I suspect.Sorry but they would have to prove it. If they are charging for a service they can't actually provide, that is fraudulent.
How would you go about establishing this? For a start, you'd have to be prepared to say, under oath, that you believed their powers were real (otherwise they wouldn't have been able to do you any harm, would they?). And saying you'd suffered "emotional grief" wouldn't be enough; you'd need expert evidence about your mental state, and the effect on the medium had on your life (you'd probably have to have become unable to work as a result, or to have required expensive counselling, for example, to get any real damages).Proving they caused you emotional grief would be a walk in the park, people get sued for that every day.
One would (if they were genuine) be very easy to do. The other is logically impossible.What's the difference between proving their powers are real and proving they aren't?
It is very difficult for the authorities to get a conviction, because of the burden of proof in criminal cases. In a civil case, it would be difficult to establish liability, and difficult to establish that quantifiable damage had been done.The idea that they can get off the hook by pretending they didn't realise they didn't have any powers is ludicrous. The burden of proof is entirely on the psychic to prove that they can provide the service they are charging for. This applies to any business, otherwise everyone could make outrageous claims about their services, and just claim naivety if they got caught.
Last edited by Mojo; 14th October 2007 at 05:05 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks