BwanaBob, think before you type.

[groman]

**BwanaBob **, did these words really just come out of your keyboard?

This is an interesting point indeed. I always thought that the 5th amendment was writen specifically to prevent the possibility of “torturing” a confession out of someone. But suppose science discovers an honest to goodness truth serum?

Under those conditions, I would actually favor repealing the amendment; since now you could harmlessly determine if someone committed a crime.

I don’t believe there exists a “right” to commit crimes with impunity.

(from this thread)
Excuse me? I firmly believe you have a right to be a fascist asshole if you wish, but don’t expect me not to argue about this. This isn’t even fit for Great Debates, since what you’re proposing is using chemicals to coerce innocent suspects into incriminating themselves in a court of law.

Yeah, you might not have a right to commit crimes with total impunity, but you do have a right to a fair trial. Fair trials are trials where factual evidence is used to convince a jury of your peers that you commited a crime, the factual nature of wether you commited the act itself is secondary. You have a right to do what you feel is right, and that includes concealing your actions that might be deemed a crime, if necessary.

What you are proposing is a complete revolution of the legal system - instead of being guilty when proven guilty you propose a person is guilty if they simply commited an act that is against the law. Well, I simply don’t know anybody who doesn’t break laws on a daily basis. You’re going to send your mother to jail? Your mailman? Are you going to go to jail?

I’d really appreciate it if you thought about what you’re saying before proposing fascist modifications to the American constitution. Hell, “fascist” is probably the wrong term since such extensive civil rights abuse is unprecedented in history. Even soviets made your confessions look voluntary for posterity, but you’re proposing it should be socially acceptable to convict people based on coerced confessions?

Why don’t we lobotomize everybody? Why don’t we put LoJack in babies at the hospital so we always know where they are? Why don’t we set up an efficient bureaucracy controlling the means of production? Why don’t we send all your self-convicted felons to re-education camps?

Of course, I’m occasionally guilty of posting without thinking as well, but I keep seeing different people suggest completely ridiculous things. An oppressive regime hurt a lot of people I cared about, but it barely touched me. I honestly don’t know how significantly more angry I would be about people like you if I was exposed more to it.

Sorry if it was just an honest mistake, but I had to vent.

[Miller]

@groman

Of course, I’m occasionally guilty of posting without thinking as well…

Boy, I’ll say.

[groman]

@Miller

Boy, I’ll say.

Hey, this isn’t about me. I might be an asshole, but that doesn’t affect the merit of his statements in any way. If Monty shows up and accuses me of being a cop-hating criminal again I might have to stay out of the hot forums for sanity’s sake.

[Gangster_Octopus]

So here we are, pitting people for wishing to debate a topic in, of all places, Great Debates.

Kinda sad.

[Miller]

If it makes you feel any better, I was refering solely to what you have posted in this thread.

[BwanaBob]

@Gangster Octopus

So here we are, pitting people for wishing to debate a topic in, of all places, Great Debates.

Kinda sad.

Thanks Gangster Octopus. I thought GD was the correct place for that topic.

[Shodan]

@groman

Hey, this isn’t about me.

You might find, as the thread develops, that this is not necessarily the case.

@groman

Excuse me? I firmly believe you have a right to be a fascist asshole if you wish, but don’t expect me not to argue about this. This isn’t even fit for Great Debates, since what you’re proposing is using chemicals to coerce innocent suspects into incriminating themselves in a court of law.

Where did you get this part from BwanaBob’s post? Especially the “innocent” part. He specifically mentioned a truth serum that worked - that is to say, would cause only the guilty to confess.

Fair trials are trials where factual evidence is used to convince a jury of your peers that you commited a crime, the factual nature of wether you commited the act itself is secondary. You have a right to do what you feel is right, and that includes concealing your actions that might be deemed a crime, if necessary.

Again, these range from problematic to simply gibberish.

And the part about lobotomies and so forth also tends to detract from your rant.

I keep seeing different people suggest completely ridiculous things.

Yeah, me too.

Regards,
Shodan

[groman]

@Shodan

Where did you get this part from BwanaBob’s post? Especially the “innocent” part. He specifically mentioned a truth serum that worked - that is to say, would cause only the guilty to confess.

You are innocent until proven guilty. It’s not simply a presumption, but rather a definition of what innocent or guilty means. So if you are guilty, you don’t need the truth serum, since you already proven to be guilty otherwise. The only logical conclusion is that the truth serum is given to innocent people as a way of proving their guilt.

[Dewey_Finn]

I don’t see the reason for the pitting. It seems like a valid subject for debate.

[John_Mace]

@groman[/quoe

Hey, this isn’t about me.

My guess is it will be more about you than about Bob. The only way you can stop that is to ask a mod to close the thread, which might not be a bad idea…

[Frank]

I don’t see the pitting either. Why wouldn’t the OP have worked perfectly well as a reply in the GD thread? Well, minus the “fascist asshole”, a term I had thought was reserved for moderators.

[groman]

@Dewey Finn

I don’t see the reason for the pitting. It seems like a valid subject for debate.

I’ll admit I overreacted a bit (ok, a lot) but debating is for things whose very normative nature does not interfere with the debate process. Statements such as “Nobody should ever debate” probably do not belong in GD, although that in itself might be a GD. I’ve misconstrued his statements as such. Sorry.

[Captain_Amazing]

@groman

You are innocent until proven guilty. It’s not simply a presumption, but rather a definition of what innocent or guilty means.

No, it is a presumption. In our legal system, a person is presumed innocent of the allegation unless it’s proven he’s guilty. It’s equally possible for a system to work the other way, although, in many ways, it’s good that our system isn’t set up like that.

While I don’t agree with Bwanabob’s argument, and I think it would lend itself to bad results, there’s no reason you couldn’t have made your argument in GD rather than the Pit.

[Man_With_a_Cat]

This thread has been brought to you by LoBabyJack TM.

Now, never lose your baby again!!!

[Shodan]

@groman

You are innocent until proven guilty. It’s not simply a presumption, but rather a definition of what innocent or guilty means. So if you are guilty, you don’t need the truth serum, since you already proven to be guilty otherwise. The only logical conclusion is that the truth serum is given to innocent people as a way of proving their guilt.

This is gibberish. How exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that a serum which forces a person to tell the truth could possibly be used to force a person to confess falsely? If they were factually innocent, then what they would say under the magic serum is, “I’m innnocent”. And they would be believed, because the serum forces a person to tell the truth.

Look, misreading a post once is an accident. It happens. Misreading it twice is different.

Regards,
Shodan

[groman]

It is not gibberish. I am asserting that guilt and innocence are legal concepts, based in the legal process and are not statements of fact about the actions themselves.

Say Bob stabs Jane with a knife in the back, killing her. That statement is a statement of fact. It does not make Bob guilty of murder. The fact that Bob believes himself to be guilty of murder does not make him guilty of murder either. He killed her, but he is not guilty until found guilty by a court of law (through a trial or a plea). He might believe he is guilty of murder AND believe he killed her, but that doesn’t make him guilty of murder, not until he
a) Pleads guilty
b) Is found guilty, legally.

BwanaBob was not clear as to what he was implying. Either he proposed confessions derived by using a perfect truth serum should be introduced into evidence, or pleas derived by using a perfect truth serum should be accepted as valid pleas. If it is the former, it is coerced testimony (the assumption being is that without the truth serum the person would not testify, and they did not chose to take the truth serum), if it is the latter it’s a coerced plea. Neither one even remotely acceptable in our legal system.

The reason why the society frowns upon coerced pleas or testimony is not because we doubt their veracity, that’s only a secondary reason. We frown upon these things because we don’t want witnesses or suspects to be coerced - we want the process to be fair.
Mods feel free to either close this one or move it to GD.

[Miller]

@groman

BwanaBob was not clear as to what he was implying. Either he proposed confessions derived by using a perfect truth serum should be introduced into evidence, or pleas derived by using a perfect truth serum should be accepted as valid pleas. If it is the former, it is coerced testimony (the assumption being is that without the truth serum the person would not testify, and they did not chose to take the truth serum), if it is the latter it’s a coerced plea. Neither one even remotely acceptable in our legal system.

Do you understand why we don’t allow coerced testimony in our legal system?

[groman]

@Miller

Do you understand why we don’t allow coerced testimony in our legal system?

Yes, because

a) We don’t want anybody coerced into testimony, because coercion itself is considered a “bad thing”.

b) Testimony is expression. Refusing to testify is a fundamental right. We try to leave speech and expression as unencumbered by government as possible. My stepfather was exhiled to Siberia in Soviet Union for refusing to testify, which is political persecution. In the US, we have protections against that sort of thing, which includes protections from undue influences such as torture, threats or truth serums.

c) Coerced testimony is of dubious veracity.

[Dewey_Finn]

At this point you’re continuing the debate but in a pit thread. Wouldn’t it have been better to have posted in the original debate thread?

[Shodan]

@groman

It is not gibberish. I am asserting that guilt and innocence are legal concepts, based in the legal process and are not statements of fact about the actions themselves.

So fucking what? A confession (or a denial) under the magic truth serum is a statement of fact, and should therefore be admitted into evidence. How does this establish a fascist state?

Say Bob stabs Jane with a knife in the back, killing her. That statement is a statement of fact. It does not make Bob guilty of murder. The fact that Bob believes himself to be guilty of murder does not make him guilty of murder either. He killed her, but he is not guilty until found guilty by a court of law (through a trial or a plea). He might believe he is guilty of murder AND believe he killed her, but that doesn’t make him guilty of murder, not until he
a) Pleads guilty
b) Is found guilty, legally.

Again, so fucking what? Bob is guilty after he is convicted, and if he truthfully confesses, he is not the victim of any injustice. The truth serum shows that his confession (or denial) is truthful.

You claimed the truth serum was going to be used to convict the innocent. Which, of course, is hyena shit.

You are arrested for stabbing your brother. You are then injected with magic serum, and asked, “Did you do it?” You truthfully reply, “No”. How will the court convict you?

The presumption of innocence (and it is indeed a presumption, not an assertion about the nature of things) can be overcome by a sufficient amount of evidence. A guaranteed truthful confession is certainly evidence. It would be the same as a dozen eye-witnesses, a DNA report, being discovered in possession of the murder weapon, and a handwritten note where Bob informs his victim of his intent to murder her.

The legal sysem is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is to protect the innocent and convict the guilty.

Apply your “logic” to DNA testing. Do you suppose a suspect should be allowed to refuse to supply a DNA sample? It might prove him guilty!
Regards,
Shodan