# BwanaBob, think before you type. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 15, 2005, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bwanabob-think-before-you-type/331198 "2005-11-15T19:15:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bwanabob-think-before-you-type/331198/61 "2005-11-16T03:38:41Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > In a usual GD topic, it is debated whether a change to the legal system would be good or bad, in terms of how fair it is. > > Your truth serum would be _better_. \*Fairer \* than the current system. > > Let me try that again, in case it didn’t get through to you. **BETTER!** **FAIRER!** Only if the cops and the prosecution and the judge take the serum as well. Innocent and guilty in the courts have a strict legal meaning. That’s what throws people about the legal system. They think in lay terms and you have to think in lawyer terms. I once had to take a polygraph when applying for a job. I failed. I ‘lied’ about not stealing from my job. I never stole from my job. They asked me again and told me not to worry about little things like a pen or coming in a little late. Nothing under 100 dollars. I understood and still ‘lied’, according to the machine. I never stole from an employer and I don’t why I failed the test except that the test isn’t perfect. Imagining that it is perfect is just too far to take a debate because then, there are no rules. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bwanabob-think-before-you-type/331198/62 "2005-11-16T03:38:45Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > I will retreat with my drug and say that the legal system should be re-evaluated if and when my drug is ever invented. I still say an innocent person would be a fool to not take it. > > Oh one last thing. I use the terms innocent and guilty not in the strict legal sense but in terms of did the person actually do the crime; nothing to do with “only guilty after they’ve been found so in a court of law”. Is there any other terminology to describe the status of a person who truly committed a crime but remains unknown? I use the word “guilty” for that. I actually have no problem in posing the issue for debate (that is, the question of whether, if we were able to discern the truth from a person about some crime with 100% certainty, we should suspend the protection against self-incrimination), my problem was with the premise resting on a misperception of the fifth amendment, and a failure to recognize that the protection against self-incrimination would prohibit, not be resolved by, a truth serum. But the debate about some method for extracting the truth from an individual could be interesting. We can, if I understand correctly, require an individual to provide samples for DNA testing. How different would it be to use some sort of truth serum, and is this okay? I myself would begin the debate erring on the side of due process and established rights as laid out in the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be open to the debate. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bwanabob-think-before-you-type/331198/63 "2005-11-16T08:41:34Z")
The GD thread posits a ridiculous hypothetical; not only that, but it also predefines any debate/objection as irrelevant - there’s no _space_ for debate, but since the scenario being described is nothing at all like the real world, who cares? The only sane way to deal with such threads is a heavy dose of hypothetical (and equally ridiculous) answers, ideally featuring giant squid. ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bwanabob-think-before-you-type/331198/64 "2005-11-16T12:36:51Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > The GD thread posits a ridiculous hypothetical; not only that, but it also predefines any debate/objection as irrelevant - there’s no _space_ for debate, but since the scenario being described is nothing at all like the real world, who cares? > > The only sane way to deal with such threads is a heavy dose of hypothetical (and equally ridiculous) answers, ideally featuring giant squid. There certainly was room for debate - just not in the direction many of you wanted to take it. I wanted to debate the possibility of the amendment being re-examined/ or stricken if indeed a 100% infallible truth detection drug were available. But because of my mistaken belief about the reason why the amendment was drafted, everyone chose to harp on that rather than the question. The argument distilled into 2 lines: OP: Change the process since 100% truth now available. Detractors: Preserve the process. We like it. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bwanabob-think-before-you-type/331198/65 "2005-11-16T13:06:24Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > The GD thread posits a ridiculous hypothetical; not only that, but it also predefines any debate/objection as irrelevant - there’s no _space_ for debate, but since the scenario being described is nothing at all like the real world, who cares? I disagree with you. Sometimes debating a “perfect” hypothetical, even if it never could happen in the real world, lets us debate principles. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bwanabob-think-before-you-type/331198/66 "2005-11-16T14:25:35Z")
A few brief points - [ul][li] **groman** , your arguments have the intellectual rigor of my great-grandfather’s _schwanzstucker_ three days after the Viagra prescription runs out.[/li][li]The presumption of innocence is a legal fiction, not a descriptive statement. An means to an end, not an end in itself.[/li][li]If your posts are an attempt to compensate for a small penis, it isn’t working.[/li][li]You oppose not only evidence collected via this theoretical truth serum, but DNA evidence as well. How about fingerprints? Also might tend to demonstrate guilt, which you would like to disallow. How about testimony from eyewitnesses? It might overcome that same presumption - no can do. How about dental impressions? Department of Motor Vehicle records showing ownership of cars used in crimes? Come to think of it, _any_ form of evidence might have the same effect as this magic serum. Ergo, we cannot allow the prosecution to present a case at all. And finally,[/li][li]The Association of Half-Witted Ass Clowns called. They want you to stop making them look bad.[/ul][/li] Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bwanabob-think-before-you-type/331198/67 "2005-11-16T15:11:31Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > There certainly was room for debate - just not in the direction many of you wanted to take it. > The argument distilled into 2 lines: > > OP: Change the process since 100% truth now available. > Detractors: Preserve the process. We like it. This argurment is had all the time about the Second Admendment. The founding fathers had no idea about machine guns and heavy assault rifles so we need to change/reexamine the 2nd Admendment. ---
**Author:** ![Scoundrel\_Swanswater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dfb087/32.png) [@Scoundrel\_Swanswater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scoundrel_Swanswater)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bwanabob-think-before-you-type/331198/68 "2005-11-16T15:38:21Z")
> [@groman](#): > > You know, the sheer amount of heat I’m getting for defending our legal system pretty much tells me that you guys don’t deserve it. > > So, bye 🙂 Wow, I for one am glad that I live in the Netherlands. I think the American justice system is a joke. Look at OJ and other cases where money bought a good attorney and a clearly guilty person gets of the hook or all these cases where disenfranchised people get locked up or even executed for crimes they didn’t commit. I much rather have a court-system based on the hypothetical truth-serum. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bwanabob-think-before-you-type/331198/69 "2005-11-16T15:52:35Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > This argurment is had all the time about the Second Admendment. The founding fathers had no idea about machine guns and heavy assault rifles so we need to change/reexamine the 2nd Admendment. And the First Amendment, since they had no idea about the Internet. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bwanabob-think-before-you-type/331198/70 "2005-11-16T17:19:16Z")
Yes, but it’s certainly logically valid to argue for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment on the argument that changes in technology have rendered it obsolete. You might not agree with the argument, but it’s not illogical. The 5th amendment protects a defendent against being compelled to testify against himself. I agree that this is a wise protection. But why exactly do we need this protection? And under what circumstances would this protection be counterproductive? ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bwanabob-think-before-you-type/331198/71 "2005-11-16T17:35:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And the First Amendment, since they had no idea about the Internet. Not to mention that the founding fathers didn’t know that religion was opiate of the people. ---
**Author:** ![PookahMacPhellimey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pookahmacphellimey/32/3175_2.png) [@PookahMacPhellimey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PookahMacPhellimey)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2005, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bwanabob-think-before-you-type/331198/72 "2005-11-18T11:53:55Z")
Whereas I think the pitting is a bit much, I can at least see where **Groman** is coming from. And although it is the Pit I think all the “pointing and lauging” is a bit unfair. I do like the idea that someone will go very far to protect the innocent until proven guilty concept. In there days of anti-terror laws and fear of crime I find that the idea that people have rights goes out the window pretty quickly without anyone even putting up a fight. What I would think in the hypothetical truth system I find hard to say, but the fact that someone will still stand up for a basic individual right just warms my heart a little. You see what I think no one so far has taken into account is that in order for this work well is you have to agree that whatever you government and justice system choose to see as crime is indeed a bad thing. Truth serums could be used to root out subversive political activity, whether you’ve had an abortion, whether you’ve had sex with a person of the same gender etc. Can you really trust your goverment to never make any of those illegal? Giving a government more power than previously over an individual _can_ potentially be dangerous. **Groman** stated somewhere that he is (or partly is) or Russian decent. That’s why he probably picked up on that. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2005, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bwanabob-think-before-you-type/331198/73 "2005-11-18T13:46:03Z")
> [@Scoundrel Swanswater](#): > > Wow, I for one am glad that I live in the Netherlands. > I think the American justice system is a joke. Hasn’t anyone ever managed to get over on the Dutch justice system? ---
**Author:** ![Good\_Egg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/96bed5/32.png) [@Good\_Egg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Good_Egg)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2005, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bwanabob-think-before-you-type/331198/74 "2005-11-18T17:06:50Z")
> [@groman](#): > > 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. > > . What kind of serum are _you_ taking? You are claiming someone can’t commit murder unless they are caught. Bob is always guilty of murder, even if he isn’t caught. Think about it. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2005, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bwanabob-think-before-you-type/331198/75 "2005-11-18T18:23:15Z")
> [@Good Egg](#): > > Bob is always guilty of murder, even if he isn’t caught. Think about it. Explanation: Schrodinger’s Jury Box. The state vector collapses when the judge hears the verdict. Until then… ---
**Author:** ![groman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/73ab20/32.png) [@groman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/groman)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2005, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bwanabob-think-before-you-type/331198/76 "2005-11-18T18:25:06Z")
> [@Good Egg](#): > > What kind of serum are _you_ taking? You are claiming someone can’t commit murder unless they are caught. Bob is always guilty of murder, even if he isn’t caught. Think about it. Well, a nitpick, but no, not always. Murder requires intent, ability to tell right from wrong, freedom of choice. If Bob was coerced, mentally ill, retarded, it wasn’t intentional, act of war or a multitude of other factors, he is not guilty of murder. Bob himself is not always in a position to determine if he is guilty, so if he is not caught he is simply a fugitive from justice. Not guilty of murder. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2005, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bwanabob-think-before-you-type/331198/77 "2005-11-18T18:32:59Z")
> [@groman](#): > > Well, a nitpick, but no, not always. Murder requires intent, ability to tell right from wrong, freedom of choice. If Bob was coerced, mentally ill, retarded, it wasn’t intentional, act of war or a multitude of other factors, he is not guilty of murder. Bob himself is not always in a position to determine if he is guilty, so if he is not caught he is simply a fugitive from justice. Not guilty of murder. Then Bob, his lawyer or the prosecutor can raise these factors regardless of the truth syrum. And with the truth syrum the prosecution, judge and jury will all know he’s telling the truth about the factor! ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2005, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bwanabob-think-before-you-type/331198/78 "2005-11-18T18:59:19Z")
I think **groman** has seen too many movies that have dialog like: Prosecutor: “Did you go into Bob’s Bakery that night?” Defendant: “But you don’t understand, I was…” Prosecutor: “Yes or no! Answer the question!” Defendant: “But I need to explain why I…” Prosecutor: “Did you go into the Bakery, YES OR NO?” Defendant: “Yes…but…” Prosecutor: “So you admit it! NO FURTHER QUESTIONS!” Defendant: “But, your honor…” Judge: “Questioning is over, please step down.” Defendant: “But I need to explain…” Judge: “I SAID STEP DOWN!” Defendant: \ But of course in real life, the defendant has a defense attorney. What they leave out of movies is the next day: Defense Attorney: “Yesterday, you testified that you went to Bob’s Bakery that night, correct?” Defendant: “Yes, I did.” Defense Attorney: “Was there any particular reason you had to go there?” Defedant: “Yes, there was.” Defense Attorney: “Could you tell us why?” Defenant: “Yes. I forgot my wallet there the day before.” Defense Attorney: “So what happened when you went into the Bakery?” Defenant: “I asked the cashier if anyone had turned in my wallet, and he said yes.” Defense Attorney: “And then what happened?” Defendant: “I took my wallet and left.” Defense Attorney: “Your honor, I’d like to enter into evidence the video tape from the security camera that corroborates my client’s testimony.” Later in the Jury room: Juror #1: “Boy, if I hadn’t known that the defendant had a perfectly good reason to be at the Bakery, I’d figure he was guilty for sure. Good thing his defense attorney cleared up that point and didn’t let the prosecutor’s biased account go unchallenged. I vote not guilty.” Jurors #2-12: “Agreed.” ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2005, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bwanabob-think-before-you-type/331198/79 "2005-11-18T19:02:02Z")
> [@Scoundrel Swanswater](#): > > Wow, I for one am glad that I live in the Netherlands. > I think the American justice system is a joke. > Look at **OJ** and other cases where money bought a good attorney and a clearly guilty person gets of the hook or all these cases where disenfranchised people get locked up or even executed for crimes they didn’t commit. > I much rather have a court-system based on the hypothetical truth-serum. > > _bolding mine_ You misspelled **Joran van der Sloot.** ---
**Author:** ![groman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/73ab20/32.png) [@groman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/groman)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2005, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bwanabob-think-before-you-type/331198/80 "2005-11-18T19:12:20Z")
I’m not talking about about the hypothetical things that go on in a court room. We’re arguing semantics here. Both “guilty” and “murder” are ideas of a society. They, whether you like it or not, are not inherent in the universe. “Killed” is a significantly more objective standard. To talk about “guilty of murder” you need a much larger picture than to talk about “killed”. Killing isn’t illegal. To determine if somebody is “guilty of murder” you have to look at the big picture. The society, perceived facts of the case (the universe, unfortunately, does not provide us with means of establishing anything other than perceptions), states of mind, and many other factors. After all that, “guilty of murder” still only remains a “best guess” on the part of a jury, judge, prosecutor and society as a whole. I’m sorry, our world is not a giant fact machine. Society invented “guilt” and “murder”, and the definition is constantly changing through history. Without society those concepts are meaningless, so the only way to establish likelihood of guilt is for society to examine what it knows through the standard established methods - a court. There’s no guilt and no murder before that happens, except for the guilt and the murder the actor themselves carry in their heart - not a very sound legal principle. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bwanabob-think-before-you-type/331198.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bwanabob-think-before-you-type/331198.md?page=5)