Why are police allowed to work with psychics in their investigations?

I do not believe using any particular service should be outright banned, though I certainly hope that courts would never utilize testimony from psychics.

If I take a few steps back I can see some benefits to using them. Having met a few self proclaimed psychics, what I took away from that experience was that they are usually very perceptive and intelligent people that have incredible skills at reading people. This is course sets up the opportunity to scam someone and that is probably where they get their bad reputation. Social engineering can be used for both good and bad. In my opinion the act they put on is just flare to distract from their ability to read people and give them an out when they fail to piece things together.

This is just a theory of mine and I have many wacky theories, but I could see psychics being a human resource for police much like a psychological counselor is to an individual, meaning that the police may already have the data/answers they need but may not be seeing the bigger picture. Perhaps a psychic can observe what police are stating and help guide them into finding answers themselves. The closest analogy I can muster is the fictional Sherlock Holmes using their ability to see all the variables and put them together in a bigger picture when the fictional police could not see the answers that were right under their noses.

Or perhaps I am giving psychics too much credit.

I think most of the times psychics volunteer their services and then tell everybody they are working with the police even if the reports get filed with "Detective Can" (the trash can).

I think it is unusual, if it ever happens, that the police seek out a psychic and pay them to help with an investigation.

I'm sure I'm preaching to the converted when I say psychics are fake. But sometimes a good lead is simply an idea that they hadn't considered yet. That's why police will take tips from anyone who feels they have one to give.

I doubt they ever "go to" a psychic. It's probably more like a psychic shows up saying they come with tips. Then they advertise that they helped solve the case. Without the proper training and licensing, they're definitely not on the police payroll.

I'm sure the vast majority of calls to Crime Stoppers are probably people's imaginations gone wild. But without leaving the door open, there is a lot they could miss.

Here's one theory: Psychic ability was researched heavily in the 1960s. It's possible that some people who were heavily involved in psychic research then and after hold great power in key places, and would prefer government policy not further normalize the discrediting of their former work..?

If psychic power really was real and useful, I'd be tempted to actively discredit its existence and exploit its power to finally achieve world domination. I'd be very happy that psychics were banned from police investigation because it would make my crimes against humanity easier to cover up.

On the rare occasion I've heard of this happening I've assumed the police want to get more people paying attention to the crime, in the hope that someone saw something useful, and at least half-way entertaining psychics is a great way of getting news coverage?

>Why are police allowed to work with psychics in their investigations?

Because psychics have their own underground gossip networks like no other.

Maybe a little bit like you would have in the movie "Escape from New York" where everybody knew more than the cops would ever know.

Not to go all whataboutism but Police are given free reign to use pseudoscience in their investigations in far more nefarious ways than ESP. Most forensic science is poorly studied (measured by academic rigor) and given undo weight both culturally and in prosecution.

At the end of the day, juries aren't required to give weight to a psychic's testimony and defense attorneys are free to criticize its merits. Just like they can call into question the merits of bitemark and blood splatter analysis, cadaver and drug dogs (and to a much lesser degree, DNA evidence).

Police investigators are not incentivized nor required to hold their investigations to scientific rigor nor are prosecutors to use what "evidence" they find in good faith.

It's a travesty in a lot of ways, but the best defense are attorneys who can tear it apart under scrutiny.

And to close it off, the people who decide the rules of evidence are not scientists. They're lawyers, judges, and politicians. If you're looking for a reason "why" something is allowed in a criminal proceeding look to blame the humans that judge whether or not some practice is as good or bad as another and if it could be presented to a jury. It's not rhyme or reason but human nature.