Nothing against Diogenes, but didn’t AFAIKnow point this particular argument out to you in Post #8?
“Only the guilty would fear this drug…”
And only a witch would fear the fire. Only the unclean would fear the bible. Only the guilty fear the law…war is peace.
Actually, giving someone a truith serum leaves open the question of guilt or innocence – you are seeking to find out IF they did it, not simply confirm that they did it. If the person says “No, didn’t do it,” then they are released as innocent. No presumption of guilt there.
If they didn’t do it, they don’t confess.
Ever hear of 'Burden of Proof"? The state has to prove their case. To me, using this serum is nothing more than throwing a witch into a lake to see if she floats or not. Did you ever notice that people convicted of crimes are not given penalties for perjury? (if they testified) That is because the state has the responsibility to prove someone is guilty and not the individual has the responsibility to prove their innocence.
The thing is that ‘truth’ is subjective, not objective. If a person believes they are innocent, they will say it, even with the serum. Just like crazy people think it is the truth that aliens are living in their basement.
I wouldn’t want this for anybody. I wouldn’t say ‘give it to Ken Lay and make him talk’ or say, ‘give it to that suspected child killer and make him talk’. If the state can’t prove a case, then the person is free to go.
“I will say it for the umpteenth time.” To protect the innocent. Even someone who committed a crime is innocent until proven guilty.
The *sine qua non * hasn’t changed. Just because your truth syrum has been invented, that doesn’t take away the presumed innocense of the accused.
I sure as hell wouldn’t. I would only if I were found guilty and was innocent.
Maybe in the not-so-distant future they’ll discover a locality of the brain that has to do with truth-telling and lying, and find ways to use it to determine truth infallibly.
Then juries would be much more inclined to find people guilty, assuming that if they messed up the juice would catch it.
Not in those exact words. He clouded the issue by throwing in the usual
gestapo police breaking down the doors scenario, which I prohibited from the get-go.
Diogenes stated that the original intent was to make the state bear 100% of the burden of proof and the accused need not take any pro-active part in proving either guilt or innocense.
I was saying that if the drug existed, that the accused not needing to take part should be re-evaluated. Offering the accused a quick exit from custody via the drug would be a good thing. Only a fool (or the guilty) wouldn’t want to take it.
But is “the truth” localized in the brain? Why presume that the truth is locked in there somewhere, and is only filtered willfully or without intent by other brain functions or processes?
To take away someone’s Fifth Amendment rights, as BwanaBob clearly thinks is important in his fantasy, is a presumption of guilt. It is also an invasion of privacy, against due process, and a coerced confession, or non-confession if you prefer.
Their rights are still taken away.
Other than to just stand there on a principle, why the hell not?
Why would you want to waste your time and the court’s time going through a needless trial if you were innocent and had available a drug that would instantly free you?
Why is it that people continually make this argument? This argument is made every time there is an issue of governmental invasion into one’s personal sphere.
The argument defies common sense. BwanaBob, I don’t know about you, but there are plenty of things I wish to keep secret that are not criminal. I have a great deal of fear of a truth serum, and what is driving that fear is not fear of imprisonment.
What if you are given the serum to find out if you stole from the office’s petty cash? It turns out that you didn’t, but under the truth serum you let slip that you’ve been boning the boss’ husband. Nothing criminal about that, but it sure as hell ain’t good for you.
Sua
It’s postulated that the truth serum is scientifically valid. I could see where a truth serum or a techno equivalent to it might not be too far in the future. A technique that could quickly and easily sort out the liars from the truth-tellers would go FAR in the administration of justice. Also, might not be a bad idea to give it to women who are accusing men of rape. Those who were found to be telling the truth would have law enforcement totally on their side, those who were lying about the rape would be charged with filing false charges.
Might make for a very different justice system – I suspect, a much better one, so long as the tech is indeed valid.
They might believe they are innocent, but when Karl Rove is asked “Did you tell Robert Novak that the woman married to Joseph Wilson was a CIA agent?” then he would have to say “Yes.” A good thing all 'round.
An effective truth serum of equivalent would be an invaluable tool in proving a case. I don’t know why you’re so addicted to the dog and pony show model of justice we have now that FREQUENTLY lets the guilty go and convicts the innocent.
How about the very first reply to this thread (post #2)???
You keep assuming guilt on the part of the suspect. No guilt, no confession, coerced or otherwise. The Fifth Amendment was created in a time when no truth serum existed, and all we had to sort out the liars from the truth-teller was evidence and logic and testimony. It made sense then. It doesn’t now.
Why do you people insist on dragging in further scary scenarios?
How many times must I stipulate how and when the drug may be used?
You know what, I have no more interest in this. I outlined a specific situation and
right away all the slippery slopers show up.
You all can blather on about how much you love that the state has to prove everything…gee it’s great to be you where you can do sneaky things and be so happy that no one can find out… yadda yadda feh!
Mods please close this train wreck.
Because people are not infallible. Why would you trust your life to those that are accusing you of a crime you didn’t commit? Why would you trust your life to something you say while you are drugged?
Certainly that is an eminently reasonable argument and explanation, but BwanaBob seemed to be responding to an explicit description of the suspension of presumtion of innocence, which AFAIK was first raised by AFAIKnow.
Because I stipulated that the drug is infallible - can’t you read?