3 ms·

Yes, just like it prevents the prosecution from bringing in a psychic that will speak your thoughts to the court.

• sobkas 3y ago
  Yes, just like it prevents the prosecution from bringing in a cop that will testify against you to the court. Yes, just like it prevents the prosecution from bringing in a hair expert that will testify to the court that your hair was on the crime scene. Yes, just like it prevents the prosecution from bringing in a blood splatter expert to testify to the court only you could make this specific splatter. As you can see, truth or efficacy isn't a prerequisite of being admitted by the court.
  • vkou 3y ago
    There's testimony about you, and there's your testimony. One is self-incriminating, the other isn't.
• JPLeRouzic 3y ago
  In France it's common for the court to ask to a psychoanalyst or a psychologist (not to a psychic) to tell what the defendant was "really" thinking and feeling, in order to decide to decide whether the defendant was responsible for his actions or not. “There is no crime or offense when the defendant was in a state of insanity at the time of offense, or when he was constrained by a force he could not resist. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9387428/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9387428/
  • lucubratory 3y ago
    This is also possible (not "common", but possible and no one bats an eye as it happens multiple times a year) in America, it's called an insanity defense and it requires expert testimony by a psychologist.