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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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: <sobs>
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.”
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.