IMHO, the amendment against self-incrimination was crafted to prevent authorities from beating a confession out of a suspect and then convicting them using that tainted confession.
But if this imagined serum is created, the torture aspect disappears; it is no longer necessary.
You simply inject the drug, ask if the suspect (with a lawyer present) if they committed the crime in question. Answer no, you’re free to go. Answer yes, it’s off to court and the confession is usable. I would not consider this torture.
I don’t recognize any right to commit crimes, so I have to issue with use of this drug.
So, wouldn’t it make sense to repeal this amendment under those conditions?
Preventing cops from beating a confession out of a suspect is not the only rationale for the Fifth Amendment privilege. The primary rationale is that a person should not be obliged to cause injury to him or herself. It is the obligation of the state to prove that a crime was committed and that the suspect did it. The goal of the suspect is not necessarily to uncover the truth, but to avoid punishment. A person should not be obliged, through truth serum or otherwise, to act against his or her own interests.
I didn’t even think this was a rationale for it, perhaps a result of it however. Anyway beating a confession would be tourcher, which we are told can’t be trusted, so such a confession would be invalid anyway. It is the obligation of the prosecution to prove the guilt, the accused does not have a obligation to help him in this process.
If found Guilty, the “juice” could be used prior to sentencing. If the accused still proclaims his innocence, he gets an “unproven” verdict. I asume this would be added to US law.
Why should the accused get a pass in not giving information. Again, you don’t have a right to commit crimes, therefore it should not be seen as a “protected/privileged/private” act.
To say they’re under no obligation to help the prosecution, I say why not?
If you didn’t do anything then there should be no fear of the truth serum. The serum wouldn’t be an open door to random questioning. With the attorney present (as a witness), the accused is asked if they took part in the crime in question. Period. If they say no, they have to be innocent, and can be freed immediately.
Only the guilty should fear such a truth serum.
Hell if I were accused of a crime I didn’t commit, I’d pay money to have a dose of such a serum in order to be freed.
That’s like saying if we take away everyones guns we can do away with the Second Amendment. Forcing someone to take the syrum would be against their Fifth Amendment rights.
I’m suggesting that the 5th be stricken if a real, safe, truth serum were invented.
I’m suggesting that the real reason the 5th existed was to prevent a co-erced confession from being used. There would be no need for force/torture to extract a confession.
I’m suggesting you have no right to commit crimes nor a right hide the facts about your involvement in a crime.
I’m suggesting an attorney be present as witness to prevent any irregularities.
To circularly argue that this is against the 5th amendment is like the guy in Spinal Tap arguing his amp is louder because it goes to “11”.
In the US you are assumed innocent until proven guilty. Attempting to force someone to prove thier guilt assumes guilt. Would you like for the cops to be able to bust into your house and do a search just because a crime was committed on your street? Only the guilty should fear such a search right?
I’ve no clue about the 5th amendment but if such a serum existed and the amendment got in the way of using it, I’m sure it wuld fly out the window.
If there was such a serum, there would be no country where 99.9% of the population wouldn’t want it to be used.
And even if for some reason its use didn’t become mandatory, every innocent person would ask to be tested (and any person refusing to be tested would be assumed to be guilty by the jurors/judges). And could you deny the right of an accused person to pass a 100% foolproof test to prove his innocence? I don’t think so.
No, this is a different scenario. You’re talking about police randomly breaking in to homes to look for trouble.
I would only allow this drug to be used on bona-fide suspects, not just give shots to everyone and ask did you commit “any” crime.
You are a suspect in custody for a specific crime. (I think the days of pulling random people off the street are long past.)
By simply taking the shot with an attorney present, you can instantly clear yourself.
No one is showing me why this is bad rather than repeated tired clap-trap against self-incrimination, as if it’s some self-evident truth. I say it’s not.
If you’re guilty, tough shit, you can’t hide behind a right to privacy to conceal crime involvement.
I think too many of you out there have guilty consciences.
Forcing someone to take a truth syrum is a coerced confession. While it may not be as violent as a torture method, it is still invading the rights (plural) of an assumed innocent person.
What if you are innocent? Just becaue someone is accused you are assuming guilt. It doesn’t work that way. Due Process is a system that includes a right to privacy.
The problem is NO drug is 100% effective on 100% of the population. I realize this is a fantasy OP, but let’s at least try to keep it as “honest” as possible. If that’s the case, what measures if any do you BwanaBob place to ensure those who are immune/resistant to the drug receive a fair trial?
What it there’s serious side effects?
What if I don’t believe the side effects are worth it? Am I now considered quilty, because as you said the innocent have nothing to fear…
This was purely fantasy; I don’t expect there to ever be such a drug, because of the exact reasons you’ve outlined. I was trying to argue past that point; that people try to wrap their minds around the idea that the right to privacy does not extend to concealment of crime.
Whoops, hit the button too soon. Many here try to just argue that right to not self-incriminate is intrinsic; I am challenging that tenet. Since I was (and probably most of you) were raied to not be rule-breakers, I find it odd people wanting to defend the right to rule-break.
Because in my fantasy world I’ve outlined, the drug is only allowed to be used in
the specific instance of interrogating about one specific crime, and with an attorney present. Slippery slope arguements not welcome.
Not true at all. What people would fear, and rightly so, would be the danger of revealing things not relevant to the crime in question. What if under the truth serum you implicate your wife/husband in something they did? Or a neighbor? Where would it stop? Do you get the ‘juice’ once a year just in case?
I ran two stop signs the morning of the questioning. Under the juice, I let it slip. Do I get a ticket for it? Again, where would it all stop? And dont tell me that you only answer truth to questions asked. A truth serum clouds the mind, so you cant think straight. You would have no control over how you answered a question, or what extra stuff you say while trying to answer the question.
Many of the people who wrote the Constitution had, fifteen or so years earlier, been exchanging clandestine correspondence that would have been considered seditious by the laws in force. Obviously, they considered it proper to secretly violate the law under at least some circumstances.