During a recent cross-time trip to replenish my stock of hookerbots, I stopped over in pre-cataclysm Atlantis for a unicorn burger and fries. While there, I came across an item I shall refer to as the Siege Perilous. While it is a chair, it is no relation to the empty seat at the Round Table. Anyone–warrior, scoundrel, hero, coward, virgin, rake–can sit in this Siege. However, as long as you’re doing so, you cannot tell a lie, either directly or by omission. When you’re sitting in the chair, you are irresistibly compelled to speak the truth as you understand it in answer to any question.
Naturally I stole one. Replicating the tech was onerous, but fortunately my staff of tech wizards was up to the task; and after a round of exhaustive and time-consuming human trials that, shall we say, exhausted my entire stock of Bill Clinton & Nancy Grace clones, we have refined the technology so that it has no deleterious effects on humans, either in the short or long time. We’re prepared to go into full production and should be able to produce about 10,000 a year.
Is there any reason not to use the Siege Perilous in our world? If yes, what are your reservations? If no, how would you like to see them used?
Can the interogatee refuse to answer, or does that fall under the category of “lie by omission”? I have to say, using it on witness stands in court is tempting, though it would violate the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution.
No. If you sit in the chair at all, you are compelled to answer all questions put to you while in it. The only way to refuse to answer would be to get out of the chair before hearing the question.
Also, if my understanding is correct, as things stand now no criminal can be compelled to take the stand in a criminal case, and thus is never subject to direct examination by the prosecution when if choosing to do so. But if a defendant to testify in his or her own defense, she or he is subject to cross-examination and must testify truthfully. The right against self-incrimination is the right not to testify at all (and not to have the prosecution point that out); it is not the right to commit perjury.
It’s a useful device for interrogation for military/intelligence purposes. Use in Court is problematic. You’d have to rework the Fifth Amendment, and jury instructions.
I wouldn’t have one in my home. “Honey, do these jeans make my ass look fat?”–Yeah, not having one in the house.
However, if I had children, I might want access to such a chair for parental purposes at times. Perhaps a coin operated version could be available at the local mall?
Given our protections on self-incriminating testimony, I could see a use for these devices in assisting with/verifying “innocent” pleas.
There’s a worry with this kind of technology concerning misuse that isn’t really plausible with non-magical devices–we’d need to have something legal set up to prevent the police from sitting one of these at a DUI checkpoint–“Sit in the chair and answer questions about how much you’ve drank, or we can cite you for not taking the test which has a worse penalty than DUI” same as how they do with Breathalyzers now in some jurisdictions.
It’s a little more complicated than that. Any witness may choose to assert their rights under the Fifth Amendment, and sometimes they do. I foresee a nightmare for prosecutors, having to pass out immunity with reckless abandon or deal with large numbers of recalcitrant witnesses.
Add to that the fact that if juries, which are already predisposed to convict, were to learn about the magical truth chair, they are going to expect a truly innocent defendant to want to have a seat and tell them he is innocent. A defendant that doesn’t is going to fry.
you could use this “voluntarily”, sort of like with lie detectors. E.g. you and your lawyer get a list of questions and are asked, do you want to answer them truthfully? If you say yes, you get put on the chair and answer them, and the prosecutor may not ask any other questions that are not pre-approved.
But I don’t think that this will do our society any good.
Certainly no person who is on trial can be compelled to take the stand in a criminal case-- I’m not worried about them, likewise spouses, physicians, and other privileged persons. But other witnesses can be compelled to testify, can’t they?
If there was just one, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. It could be heavily guarded and whatnot. But mass produced? Someone is going to get their hands on it and use it nefariously. Do you realize how many secrets we have to keep to keep society safe?
It’s not the dishonesty that is a problem. It’s the being compelled to answer, and the fact that you might be forced into the chair. There are things that good and honest people do not want the horrible people of the world to know.
And, remember, this is Skald. He’s already on the wrong side.
Question: “The truth as the sitter perceives it?” or “The Truth even if the sitter doesn’t believe it?” Makes a difference.
I’d make the things mandatory for all parties during union/management negotiations, not to mention romantic restaurants and in the front room if some little heathen wants to date my (hypothetical) daughters.
Say it’s 2005, and the Bush-era CIA thinks that you, BigT, know the details to an Al-Qaida plot to blow up the Golden Gate Bridge at rush hour. This belief is erroneous, but you’ve already been, ah, detained. Do you want to sit on the Siege Perilous, or to be waterboarded?
While there’s no way to avoid abuse by persons who currently get their intel via torture & whatnot, I’m not convinced there’s no way to set up the legal uses of the SP so that its use in a court of law are, on balance, for the good.
:: evil hat on ::
I am not interested in conquering the Earth. Too much paperwork. Nor do I wish to destroy the Earth. All my stuff is here. So is Adele Adkins.
:: evil hat off ::
The sitter is compelled to answer the question as he or she understands to be correct, and in full. The person does NOT get information she or he is not in possession of, and is NOT freed of any self-delusions – at least not directly. I can imagine using clever socratic questions to help people see why self-contradictory beliefs cannot be true, so that, at during a series of questions, you could honestly answer the same question in different ways at different points.
Ignoring the union thing – are you nuts? Utter honesty in romantic situations leads to the extinction of the human race in 12 easy steps.
The sitter is obliged to answer, and truthfully, but are they obliged (or even able) to restrict themselves to what is relevant? I could just see myself as a witness, asked to describe the events of May 23, 2017, or some such.
That’s going to be a matter of making sure you ask the right question, I think. Let’s say there’s a way to turn the compulsion off so a person, asked such a careless question, can stop, allowing the interrogator to rephrase, as in “Mr. Chronos, on 17 May 2017, you were present when the Crown Jewels were stolen, is that correct?” I think you’d have to begin with yes-or-no questions so as to narrow the focus.
And, of course, the chair doesn’t improve your memory. If you’ve genuinely forgotten what you ate for breakfast a week ago today, you’ll be obliged to answer “I don’t know.”
I love the idea, provided the circumstances under which it is used can be controlled. Or, not controlled at all; doesn’t seem fair to only allow certain people to use/own it. ‘If truth chairs are illegal, only criminals have truth chairs!’ Yep. Still love the idea.
If it was truly unhackable and reliable, I think it’d be great for courtroom use. Juries would still have to be instructed about the right to remain silent, of course. The rules of evidence would probably have to be rejiggered - if you take the stand now as a criminal defendant, the prosecutor can ask you about virtually anything on cross-examination. You might actually be innocent of the crime with which you’re charged, but have a long record of other crimes about which you could be asked. Maybe with the truth chair you could only be asked a previously-agreed-upon list of questions, as code_grey suggests.
There was a book a few years back - not very well-written, but an interesting concept - about a 100% reliable lie-detector system. It transformed the legal system, diplomacy, business contracts, and election campaigns. Wish I could remember the name.
Yep, I agree with this entirely, especially about the interrogation uses. It’d be nice not to have to listen to all the Johnny-come-lately internet experts on the effectiveness of various interrogation techniques–just (gently) sit someone down in the chair (and softly ask them questions in a kind tone of voice).