Guilt, Ethics and Legality of Esper Work and Its Weaponization

As I am a bit of a rationalist, I often discredit my "hits" as mere coincidences and not supernatural powers even if they happened to show some degree of consistency.  This however does not take away the fact that every time I have a "successful hit", even when it was likely just coincidence, I feel some sense of guilt.

Target selection, guilt management, and rationalization

As detailed in a previous post, I discovered these so called "psychic" side effects by accident after noticing that there was a pattern between certain things I did and the timing of people ending up in unfortunate situations. As such, most of my earlier hits involved people I did not wish to deal any damage.

Now to prevent "cursing innocent people", I have to develop a sort of norm for what can be considered as a good sample for my experiments. However, the biggest hurdle is defining who gets "hit" and who doesn't. I am but a human who have also sinned, likely far more than the people that surround me every day. So who am I to judge, what what's the criteria? Someone who sinned more than I did? How do I determine that?

With that, I have come to accept that I have to be a "bad person" to some extent. Psychopaths are people who reportedly feel no remorse after committing things such as shoplifting or more. Because this is a condition they have to live with, they are often forgiven as people who don't know what's right and wrong. This means that I am perhaps worse than a psychopath, because even though I know that using so called "psychic powers" on people is wrong and could deal damage, I still proceed for the sake of research and development. I have to convince myself "I am no better than a street thug if any of these powers are real but I will balance it out by targeting criminals". 

So a priority list is born:

1. Registered offenders and people who are in jail for confirmed crimes
2. Confirmed abusers who are causing continuous stress to families and surroundings
3. Random high profile targets for scope testing
4. Small time criminals and random people (strictly for studying demographic patterns)

How immoral is esper and psychic work?

Replace "I used telekinesis to cause a small cut on John's hand" with "I used a weapon to cause a small cut on John's arm", and suddenly it sounds like a crime. That's because harm is harm no matter the method. I believe that harm is wrong, and esper work should be handled with responsibility, same as keeping a firearm in a safe so your kids don't mishandle it.

While this entire project could just be dismissed as a delusional tapestry of coincidences and self-serving biases, it still does not take away from the fact that the intention was there. In this post, I mention that unlike other self-claimed psychics, I can't do fortune telling, remote viewing, spoon bending or any of that pop-culture stuff, but I have noticed that when I do some things, the person I had focused on end up with some form of damage. In other words, my powers are only good for damage. Harming the innocent violates my principles, so although I know that I am rationalizing, I have to rationalize it by reducing the amount of harm to a minimum for my experiments (ex: give a person from a different country a common cold to test a psychic procedure), or try the experiment on some inmate I found in a database, but then I would need ways to verify if something indeed happened.

If you had the "power" to cause minor or major damage, would you use it on criminals and such? Do you think you will be responsible enough not to abuse it on random people? The truth is, we all think we would be responsible "soldiers", but without proper discipline, stress, emotions, jealousy, envy, anger, and more things can lead people to do things in the spur of the moment. This is why I am not in favor of everyone having access to this power if someday it ended up being possible.

Legal concerns

As of now, there is no real legal framework that deals with psychic work, although certain concepts may be "retrofitted" to deal with malpractice.

Core Criminal Elements

• Actus Reus (The Guilty Act): The prosecution must prove that the accused caused the physical harm or death. Even if an object moves or a person is crushed via unseen forces, the state must link that movement directly to the defendant's actions beyond a reasonable doubt. [1, 2, 3]
• Mens Rea (Intent): The state must show that the defendant acted with intent, knowledge, or criminal negligence (e.g., purposefully using an ability to kill versus an accidental or uncontrollable outburst). [1, 2]
• Causation: The law requires a clear chain of causation showing that the defendant's conduct produced the prohibited result. [1]

Evidentiary and Trial Hurdles

• The "Junk Science" and Standard of Proof Problem: Under rules of evidence (such as Daubert or Frye standards in U.S. courts), scientific or expert testimony must be reliable, peer-reviewed, and replicable. A theory that a person crushed a skull using invisible mind powers would generally be inadmissible or rejected as unprovable pseudoscience. [1, 2]
• Burden of Proof: If video footage only shows an object flying or a person collapsing while the accused gestures with no physical or conventional weapon tied to them defense attorneys can argue reasonable doubt, claiming the event was an unexplained accident, a coincidence, or a physical impossibility ("the force isn't real"). [1, 2, 3]
• Circumstantial Evidence: A conviction would rely entirely on circumstantial proof such as a clear motive, witnesses, or a confession; forcing a jury to bridge the impossible gap of believing in supernatural mechanics. [1, 2]