I was just thinking about something that comes up a lot in fantasy and science fiction. In Dungeons and Dragons, for instance, there are spells that can read people’s minds, detect when people are lying, and compel people to tell the truth. In Babylon 5, there are telepaths who can read your every thought. Now, in Babylon 5, telepaths are forbidden to give testimony in court. That means you can’t just have a telepath read someone’s mind and say, “He’s guilty!” My topic for debate is, why not? I mean, sure, the wizard or telepath could just lie themselves, and you get the classic problem of “who watches the watchers.” ANY witness could lie, but that doesn’t stop us from using eyewitness testimony. If some form of magic or psychic power existed that could read someone’s mind or compel them to tell the truth, would it be morally right for a court to use this power on suspects? Why or why not?
I think the normal justification for not using telepaths in court cases has something to do with the Fifth Amendment. After all, for all practical purposes the defendant would be testifying against himself(albeit through the ability of another.)
It would be the difference between one witness lying for one defendant in one case and one person pretty much single handedly deciding the outcome of every case in that jurisdiction. There will always be people who lie on the stands, but you cannot afford to have one bad telepath single handedly corrupting the system.
Under our laws we have a fundamental right not to incriminate ourselves. An eyewitness simply tells the judge and jury what he saw. In Babylon 5 the “mundanes” had almost no defense against “teeps” and couldn’t prevent their thoughts from being read. So it just wouldn’t be right.
Marc
It was my understanding that American judges got around the 5th amendment by slapping those who invoked it with huge penalties under contempt of court?
From the little I know of it, I’ve heard that if you don’t want to self-incriminate, your only recourse is plausible lies.
You can refuse to answer questions. You cannot be compelled to testify against yourself in a criminal proceeding.
Marc
I think that you need to examine the reasoning behind the right not to incriminate yourself.
My understanding is that it was intended to stop torture.
From The Constitution of the United States, Its Sources and Its Application, by Thomas James Norton – in the section dealing with the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment:
Of course, there IS a way that such magic could be used without violating someone’s right to self-incrimination. Simply allow people to refuse to testify, as is done under current law, but if anyone DOES decide to testify, put them under a zone of truth spell, get Professor Snape to give them a potion of truth, or something like that. That way, no guilty person would ever WANT to testify on their own behalf. That in itself might be seen as an admission of guilt by the jury, just like taking the 5th is seen today, but of course it couldn’t be legally considered evidence of guilt.
Of course, all this assumes the clerics couldn’t just ask their god with a commune spell whether the guy was guilty or not.
From the Monty Python “Church Police” sketch:
Vicar-Sergeant: Oh Lord, tell us who croaked Lester.
God: The one in the braces, he done it.
Guilty Guy: It’s a fair cop, but society’s to blame.
Vicar-Sergeant: Agreed. We’ll be charging them too.
(They probably couldn’t do this in D&D, though; most D&D gods aren’t omniscient.)