# Tell The Truth -- So Help You Zeus **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 8, 2000, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-the-truth-so-help-you-zeus/36112 "2000-10-08T02:37:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ricksummon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ricksummon/32/3333_2.png) [@ricksummon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ricksummon)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2000, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-the-truth-so-help-you-zeus/36112/1 "2000-10-08T02:37:10Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Initial\_Entry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e9a140/32.png) [@Initial\_Entry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Initial_Entry)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2000, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-the-truth-so-help-you-zeus/36112/2 "2000-10-08T02:49:43Z")
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.) ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2000, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-the-truth-so-help-you-zeus/36112/3 "2000-10-08T19:20:12Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2000, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-the-truth-so-help-you-zeus/36112/4 "2000-10-08T22:03:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ricksummon \* > \*\*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? > \*\* 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 ---
**Author:** ![Kyberneticist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dc4da7/32.png) [@Kyberneticist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyberneticist)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2000, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-the-truth-so-help-you-zeus/36112/5 "2000-10-08T23:58:14Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2000, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-the-truth-so-help-you-zeus/36112/6 "2000-10-09T01:08:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kyberneticist \* > \*\*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 ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2000, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-the-truth-so-help-you-zeus/36112/7 "2000-10-09T03:35:05Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2000, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-the-truth-so-help-you-zeus/36112/8 "2000-10-10T00:35:35Z")
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: > [@](#): > > He cannot be required to testify either directly or indirectly. His papers and books cannot be made to speak against him. In this particular the Fourth and Fifth Amendments unite for one purpose. “This provision.” says the Supreme Court, “had its **origin** in a protest against the inquisitorial and manifestly unjust methods of interrogating accused persons which had been obtained in the Continental system and . . . was not uncommon even in England.” It has been remarked as singular that this provision should not have been in the body of the Constitution, as it was already in the constitutions of several States at the time of the Convention. > > Officers of the army placed a man in the establishment of one suspected of disloyalty, and he purloined papers which were used in evidence against the owner of them. Pointing out once more that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments cooperated to protect a man from being made a witness against himself, either orally or by his papers, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed (1921) the trial court for permitting the papers to be used, and said: > > > [@](#): > > > > It has been repeatedly decided that these Amendments should receive a liberal construction, so as to prevent stealthy encroachments or ‘gradual depreciation’ of the rights secured by them, by imperceptible practice of courts, or by well-intentioned but mistakenly over-zealous executive officers. > > In 1893 Congress enacted that no person should be excused from producing books and papers in response to a _subpoena duces tecum_ (a formal writ demanding the production of specified records) of the Interstate Commerce Commission; but it kept the statue within the purpose of this clause by adding that no prosecution should follow any disclosure made. The prosecution being made impossible, the basis of the constitutional right to refuse to answer the Interstate Commerce Commission no longer exists. This special legislation was considered necessary to aid the Commission in its investigations of railroad operation and management. > > Of course a person may waive the privilege. And if the statute of limitation bars prosecution for the crime, he will be compelled to answer. So he cannot claim privilege if he has already been pardoned, for that prevents prosecution. > > Compulsory self-incrimination existed for four hundred years after the Magna Charta, and it gained some recognition among the early colonists, for the record of the trial of Mrs. Anne Hutchinson in 1673 shows that Governor Winthrop, who presided, was not aware of any privilege against self-incrimination. ---
**Author:** ![ricksummon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ricksummon/32/3333_2.png) [@ricksummon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ricksummon)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2000, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tell-the-truth-so-help-you-zeus/36112/9 "2000-10-10T02:49:08Z")
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.)