By your argument, only innocent people are ever charged with crimes. You’re turning this into a pointless semantic debate.
Yes, of course. I am strongly against compelling people to give up their DNA. If they discard it willingly however, it’s fair game (Say by dropping some hair in the police department or such).
Shodan, stop denigrating hyena shit. Hyena shit is top quality shit, unlike the OP’s posts in this thread.
OK, hyena shit is really hyena shit, but it is still better than the OP’s posts in this thread.
Wow, what a nutty OP.
If a hypothetical perfect truth serum were created, the legal system would change to reflect it – and that would be fine, because with such a serum, there would be constructions in place that serve no purpose but shielding the guilty.
As it stands, things are set up to avoid the miscarriage of justice, and it’s acceptable that some guilty parties escape prosecution or conviction so that innocent people are protected from malicious persecution.
If we had a truth serum that was 100% accurate and totally safe to use, a legal system with it at its very center would be completely fair.
It would be fucking marvelous. False accusations would be quickly cleared up. Guilty people would be sorted out quickly.
It’s a silly thing to debate though – we might as well get hetted up about the morality of a magic spell that instantly teleports potential murderers and rapists to Coventry the second before they commit their crimes.
Should I be selling my property in Coventry?
Yes, because “coercion” implies some method of forcing. Forcing, in this day and age, would mean torture/blackmail or some other method of unpleasant activity. Your truth serum is not unpleasant (other than forcing the guilty to confess) thus while it is “forced” it is not a “bad thing”.
Ok, i’ll give you that one. While it would be better, I believe, to always use the truth serum (after all, it’s always effective) it would be a case of persons’ rights against society’s rights. A good topic for GD.
c
Only because, with torture etc, the suspect may make up any old thing in order to stop the pain. Likewise, with truth serums and lie detector tests currently, they may not be as effective, and thus a guilty person could go free. However, as you said, your truth serum is foolproof.
With the number of laws on the book, I can guarantee you that a 100% efficient system would keep every single person locked up for life. All of us commit hundreds of tiny little crimes every day we are not aware of. Throwing batteries in the trash, accidentaly littering, speeding, etc.
The legal system is purposely limited to punish only those who can be proved guilty in a court of law. It is designed to only curb behavior that stands out in a way that society disapproves of. Punishing everybody who commits a crime every time would be a nightmare. Giving law enforcement and prosecutors new tools to make convictions easier is counterproductive.
So you’re against plea bargains, reduced sentencing for giving testimony against another, & court costs? There are enough violations of this Bad Thing that this one should get some thought, at least.
“We’re don’t allow coerced testimony because we’re against coerced testimony.” Again, do you understand why?
In the current context, I’ll leave this one alone.
Um… yeah?
I’m not going to debate the serum thing here, while there’s an a GD thread for it, but yes, people are guilty when they commit acts that are against the law.
Legally, we do not act as if they are guilty (incarceration, etc.) until it is proven in a court of law, but that does not alter the fact of whether or not they are actually guilty of the crime to begin with.
Not to mention, even if you are guilty of breaking the law with your battery disposal misdeeds, there is no requirement that the government enforce it. We can start by enforcing all the Murders, Rapes, Assaults, and Robberies via truth serum and perhaps be magnanamous and let the jaywalkers stay free.
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 
I nominate groman for Chief Justice.
Or King. If he’s got that specail suace, let’s make him King. The crime rate would plummet. In the meantime, get me all the options you can on prison stocks.
Two things; firstly, when was the last time you saw the police pick up and lock up someone for littering? In order to use the serum, in order to arrest someone, they must have a reasonable belief that you have committed that crime, and that the crime is worth bringing in.
Secondly, people get brought in for minor law breaking? Fine by me. But you seem to think that even when people know there’s a 100% correct solution, they will keep committing minor crimes. Which they won’t. I know i’d think twice about littering, or speeding slightly, when I know that I may be caught and definetly be proven to be in the wrong.
Yes, it is. Because we have no means of being certain of guilt, we have set up a system so that evidence for guilt can be put forward and judged. With your truth serum, we **do ** have means of being certain. Thus we would not need the current one.
But it would be fair. And, surely, that’s the point?
No, no it isn’t. Law enforcement and prosecutors are people who try and secure convictions for guilty people. Your truth serum would make their job much easier; in fact, there may be no need for prosecutors at all. After all, we have a 100% accurate way of measuring guilt.
Then, groman, I’d guess we would have to find prosecutors free of sin and guilt to try 280,000,000 people. Then we would have to set up a system that would allow them to sift through the roughly 6 googol laws there are to break.
Or, given the perfect truth serum, we could set up a fair system of use. Maybe a grand jury that would determine if there is sufficient evidence in order to use a truth serum on a suspect. Maybe a system preventing random incrimination by forcing prosecutors to ask about and try only about a specific crime. Nah, those things would never work. Let’s just jump to the conclusion that we’ll have enough crime-free people (let’s call them the KGB) to go around and ask everyone if they’ve broken any law today (of course, everyone would have to know throwing batteries away is illegal - in this case, ignorance of the law is an excuse) and have them sent somewhere (let’s call it Siberia) for punishment. Soon, no law will be broken anywhere, as the entire population, except for these KGB members, will be behind bars.
:smack: oops. Make that BwanaBob.
BwanaBob for King!
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!
Translated from Russian: I’m getting my ass kicked in this thread and have no way of defending my idiotic overstatements, so rather than admit I’m wrong, I’ll just leave.
D_Odds
Former AF linguist (Russian)
Ah, perhaps it should be. After all, it’s quite amusing to see you posting “think before you type.” I’ve yet to see any actual evidence you’ve managed to accomplish that particular act.
Ah, the light begins to dawn!
Do you mean the total lack thereof of that particular quality?
You proved that you’re a cop-hating idiot already. You basically admitted it. As to the bit about a criminal…perhaps you are (or were) or perhaps you aren’t (or weren’t). At any rate, you’re still a funny little poster.
You’re sane? Learn something new every day. :rolleyes:
No, build cheap housing and a bus station. You’ll make a killing.
And get transported to Coventry.
No you do not. You have a 100% accurate way of, by force, ascertaining somebodies perception of events. Perceptions can be wrong. It still takes a case to ascertain that a crime took place (Just because Bob stabs Jane, doesn’t mean there’s a murder. It could be self defense, manslaughter, lawful act of war, or a gazillion other things) , and that is a pretty tall order. Defendant’s internal belief that he or she is guilty of a crime does not make him or her guilty of a crime. You need the facts, and you need to prove that the facts match the definition of the crime you’re prosecuting and that none of the billion exceptions apply.
All that a truth serum would accomplish is coerce people into testifying against themselves or others when they otherwise wouldn’t. It doesn’t necessarily make prosecuting a crime easier, just unfair.
Good point. However, I would say that in general, if you think you didn’t do it, you didn’t. If you think you did, you did. As you said, though, that can be wrong, so the truth serum would need to be taken into account with other evidence.
Surely, under the truth serum, Bob will tell us whether it was self defense, manslaughter, an act of war, or any of these other things?
Quite so. Other facts would still be needed.
And here’s that problem again. People testifying against themselves when normally they wouldn’t? Duh. That’s what criminals do. Granted, it may make the tiny amount of people who believed they’ve committed a crime (who are these people, anyway? what circumstances would lead you to beleive you’d stabbed/shot someone, when you haven’t?) would get pissed on under this system, but it’s still a lot more fair. More guilty people will be caught. More innocent people will be set free. It’s MORE FAIR. Giving more abilities to police does not mean OMGWTF POLICE STATE!!! necessarily; in this case, it would be a FAIRER SYSTEM, as even if the police are corrupt (as it appears you believe) they will be unable to say “oh, hey, he’s guilty, let’s beat him”. Guilt would be more obvious, to all.
Easier? Yes, it would be. In most cases, you would not need as much other evidence. Unfair? To who? The guilty person, who is forced to confess? That’s not unfair. The innocent person, who is forced to confess innocence? That’s not unfair. The guilty person, who is set free? Can’t happen, all guilty people will know they are guilty and confess it. The innocent people who confesses (mistakenly) their guilt? Who are these people? How can you be wrong about being guilty? I imagine if there are people, at all, it is but a tiny minority. Thus, this system is FAIRER than the one we have currently.
FAIRER!