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 scien

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.