Telekinetic on trial for murder

[Bullgrit]

In today's real world, could a telekinetic person get away with murdering someone with his/her telekinetic powers? Say the TK, in front of several witnesses, with motive, waved his hand and crushed the skull of a victim from a distance. Could he be successfully prosecuted? What about if there was a weapon, wielded "by thin air"?

Bullgrit

 

[Umbran]

So, you have a victim. You have a suspect with motive, and opportunity. You have witnessed actions that imply some means, even if you don't understand them.

Riddle me this: How many guilty of murder verdicts are there per year wherein the murder weapon is never found, or there is no physical evidence? I suspect most district attorneys would be highly reluctant to allow he case to come to court, but a sufficiently charismatic lawyer could probably convince a jury.

We could consider a similar case as a thought experiment. The suspect is a well-known, accomplished stage magician. He calls the victim up during a show to help with a trick. The victim winds up without a head, but the cops cannot find any mechanism or device which would result in the trick having that result. Could the suspect be convicted? Quite probably, as the jury could be easily convinced that the suspect had means - things of this nature are the suspect's expertise, after all.

So, now back to your case - we have witnesses to the guy's head getting crushed. Nobody can say how it happened, but the means *must* have been there. Someone had the means, as heads don't spontaneously crush themselves! How hard is it to convince the jury that the means, whatever they were, belong to this one person with motive?

 

[sabrinathecat]

Spectral evidence was disallowed after the Salem Witch Trials. So, how to prove it? How do we know it wasn't another TK? Even an inept lawyer with a biased jury should be able to get the defendant off.
Or is it time to call in PsiCorp?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In the modern era, the first step would be proving TK exists. If you can't do that, all you have is coincidence.

Because you have to prove you have a human killing a human to have a homicide punishable by law- before that, you just have death by unknown means. For all we know, a small, unknown and ephemeral quantum particle with hyper gravity just popped up in the guy's head, then ceased to exist.

 

[RangerWickett]

Is the psychic guy black?

 

[Quickleaf]

Yeah, I'm not convinced psychokinesis exists (that's the modern scientific name for telekinesis). There's a decent article on The Skeptics' Dictionary which addresses some of the research flaws and hoaxes around psychokinesis. http://www.skepdic.com/essays/psihistory.html

 

[Umbran]

In the modern era, the first step would be proving TK exists. If you can't do that, all you have is coincidence.

And, in the history of courts, how many folks have gone to jail on the basis of circumstantial evidence? Coincidence, with strong motive, can be powerful in the jury's eyes.

Remember, your jury is not composed of scientists and skeptical thinkers, in general - the jury selection process tends to weed out such folks, does it not? And your prosecutor, if he is wise, never uses the words telekinesis or psychokinesis. He focuses on motive, he focuses on the suspect's expression on the security camera just *after* the incident, and so on. He builds a case that, however it was done, this guy was certainly behind it.

 

[Kaodi]

I think there is another way we could question this: Who is to say the only possible charge is murder?

 

[Umbran]

I think there is another way we could question this: Who is to say the only possible charge is murder?

Good point. We're talking about "getting away with" murder. Are they getting away with it if they end up with a staggering civil suit judgement against them? In a civil suit, the burden of proof is significantly lower - maybe we should just sue him for all he'll ever be worth?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And, in the history of courts, how many folks have gone to jail on the basis of circumstantial evidence? Coincidence, with strong motive, can be powerful in the jury's eyes.

Lots, but were talking about a modern case. And in almost all cases, to proceed with a murder trial as a prosecutor, you have to start with a coroner's report that has a cause of death attributable to human action/suspicious.

For example, there are all kinds of physical signs that can occur due to natural, non-criminal causes, but also may be evidence of murder. There was a case of an elderly hillbilly (for lack of a better term) who went to jail for killing his brother. Lots of evidence suggested intentional suffocation, but it was later revealed during his appeals process that the deceased suffered from a series of afflictions that would leave the exact same signs. The conviction was overturned. But the starting process was a declaration that the death was suspicious.

There are many toxins that can mimic natural causes of death, something many poisoners depend on. But there are tests that can be done that can, in many but not all- cases that can distinguish between natural and unnatural causes.

But in each case above, the is a determination that the death in question was at least suspicious, and a proven possible method of homicide.

Here, we have a head being crushed/collapsing in synch with someone making a gesture. In order to sustain a conviction, the prosecution would have to prove to the court that such a gesture could cause death. This is not trivial- most American jurisdictions have "junk science" laws dictating a standard of proof for putting forth scientific evidence. And unless you can show some peer reviewed documentation, or current experiments that are capable of being replicated by other scientists, you simply won't be able to sustain a conviction, because your theory of the crime will not even be allowed to be presented in court.