So, would it be illegal to harm someone by using the nocebo effect ?
In fact, I am obliged by the laws of my state to acknowledge God. In that it is mandatory for a person using the public highways to enter into a legal insurance contract acknowldging that an “act of God” as a possible cause of a casualty. Such determination lawfully and contractually relieving the insurer of any responsibility for damages so incurred.
However, as far as I know, there has never been an incident in which an insurer refused to settle because it was believed that gris-gris had been sprinkled on the car. But if a driver made such a claim, it would make an interesting case if the insurer protested that the gris-gris called for a supernatural agent, invoking the Act of God clause.
In fact, dictionaries define “supernatural” as : of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
Dictionaries also define “act of God” as “the operation of uncontrollable natural forces”. There is nothing supernatural about acts of God, and in using the term we do not acknowledge God any more than when we use the term “goodbye”. Etymologically, both terms come from the word “God” but, semantically, neither of them refers to God.
The sprinkling of gris-gris is not an uncontrollable natural force and, therefore, is not an Act of God. And, if the sprinkling of gris-gris does have any supernatural effects, they’re not acts of God either.
Then I guess we have to go back to Mr. Kobayashi and ask whether this thread refers to my definition of supernatural, or yours. He does seem to include " prayers to the Almighty".
Prayers are obviously not supernatural; they are things we do. If a prayer has an outcome granted by special divine intervention into the natural order, that would be supernatural.
The point is, neither the prayer nor its outcome is an “act of God” for the purposes of your insurance policy. “Acts of God” are the operation of uncontrollable natural forces. Anything actually done by special divine intervention would not be an “act of God”. Therefor, even if the insurance company could prove that the damage the subject of the claim had been worked by a curse invoking some malicious deity - and good luck with that - that wouldn’t enable them to avoid liability by pleading the “act of God” clause.
Understood. The OP is asking if there is criminal code anywhere that addresses or allows for a prosecution, if a person is harmed through a malevolent appeal to a “supernatural” agent. Although not written into the US codes, the presence of language in enforceable US contracts allowing for a diety to cause a casualty would seem to open the door to litigation or prosecutions that would take effect in criminal assaults, as well.
If a court is prepared to entertain a deity as a causation in a motor accident, it might be difficuolt to persuasively deny that a deity can be an agent in a criminal assault.
Some states require a house seller to inform potential buyers if the house is haunted. I’d guess under very specific circumstances this could apply. Home owner hates buyer, doesn’t disclose haunted house. Buyer purchases house and is proven to be frightened to death by ghost. All a bit farfetched, but if you legally must disclose this information there could be a penalty for not doing it.
Well, we have no reason to think that a court is prepared to entertain a deity as a causation in a motor accident, so the difficulty you point to seems moot.
But, remember, in the right circumstances a spoken threat of physical harm to someone can be a criminal assault; you don’t actually need to hit him. And if the victim believes, however irrationally, that a curse can injure him physically just as much or more than a kick, in terms of the kind of behaviour that we wish to sanction is there any difference between threatening to kick him and pronouncing a curse on him?
If someone were trying to kill someone using supernatural methods, I’d be concerned that they might eventually get fed up with nothing happening so pick up a gun and do it the natural way.
What if I robbed someone who was a firm believer in magic, and threatened them with a wand? Would that be the equivalent of threatening someone with a fake gun. Or would it be ruled no reasonable person would believe a wand is dangerous (outside of poking one’s eye out)? What if that person shot me in “self defence” because of my magical threat? (they believe in magic, but not that they themselves are magical) I demand answers, people. And fast. Don’t ask why.
I can actually see the logic here. Regardless of whether ghosts actually exist, some people believe that they do. Those people might not want to buy a house that has a reputation for being haunted, which will have a negative effect on the property value. As such, if a house is wildly considered to be haunted that reputation should be disclosed as it has the potential to lower its value.
Then again, I can see a lot of horrible extensions of this logic. “You have to disclose that a black family once lived here because the new owners want to do it up and resell but most of the other buyers here are KKK members”.
I don’t think it would matter how the victim met his end, it would matter how much the victim was aware of your practices and how much that affected the victim’s behaviors.
If you are just praying, chanting, spellcasting, whatever, in the privacy of your home and without alerting the victim in any way, then I can’t see that what you’ve done in a crime.
However, most laws are written very specifically but very inclusively when defining with trespassing, nuisance, harassment and event assault or battery. Did you sneak onto their property to take a sample of hair for your voodoo doll, thereby meeting a definition of trespassing and/or theft? Did you touch them to cast a hex, thereby meeting a definition of assault and battery? Did you give them holy water to drink, believing that it would kill them? Most laws wouldn’t be bothered by an ineffective attack - if you had the intent to cause harm and you performed any action defined by a law, then you could probably be charged that way.
A non-effective type of attack would be more likely to be overlooked by the police or prosecutors, but if you make a nuisance of yourself in hexing the neighbors, I don’t doubt they could find something to charge you with.
You don’t have to go to South Africa to find someone murdered for allegedly (or actually) performing witchraft. In upstate NY, in a strange “Christian” sect, a teenager was murdered by members of the congration for practicing witchcraft. He made a doll representing the pastor and stuck pins in it. His brother was also beaten, but didn’t die.
Around here, there were parents attempting to get Dungeons & Dragons banned (kids, including mine, were playing it during lunch hour) because they believed the kids were calling up evil spirits.