Suppose truth serums became practicable and could enable suspects to blurt out all they know about something when asked. Would such a serum be acceptable to actually use against suspects?
No. They would violate constitutional protections against self-incrimination.
There is another issues of consent to what amounts to an invasive medical procedure.
Aren’t they the same issue? Non-testimonial evidence such as blood samples are equally as invasive. The OP did not mention “in court”.
In court, I’d assume that truth serum would not be allowed for the same reasons that lie detector tests and hypnosis are not allowed.
The Master speaks:
For a funny take on that last point that would also cover your hypothetical, you should see the Red Dwarf episode “Justice”. The Character Rimmer got sent to the slammer because a mind probe found him guilty of killing all the crew of the Red Dwarf; as it turned out, it was his huge ego that told him that he was important and that he had failed to do a task that caused the deaths, he was completely wrong an innocent. A perfect interrogation tool can still give you false information.
I thought they weren’t allowed primarily because they aren’t reliable - or in the case of hypnosis are worse than unreliable, since it can induce false memories in some people.
As for the law against self incrimination; what about someone who wanted to use such a (reliable) serum to prove themselves not guilty?
I’m not a laywer, but I think the dividing line if set at physical evidence. Stuff like DNA and fingerprints is physical evidence and is not considered self-incrimination. But interrogation (or testimony) under a truth serum would be “mental” evidence.
I think, in Hypothetical Land, that I would not be opposed to the use of a perfectly safe and perfectly reliable Truth Serum.
I keep feeling like I *should *be opposed, but I can’t really figure out why. I hate the 5th; the idea that we can escape responsibility for our crimes by not speaking them makes me ill. It’s a symptom, I think, of our judicial system which is not at all interested in establishing the truth of the events or bringing actual justice, but rather a sport between lawyers to catch each other and law enforcement in errors. It’s the world where people decry red light cameras not because their privacy is being invaded and car tracked, but because they should be able to get away with breaking the law if there’s not a living, breathing police officer to catch them. (But I’m especially cynical and grumpy tonight, so I may not feel that way tomorrow.)
In the real world, of course, there’s no such thing as a perfectly reliable Truth Serum, for the reason **GIGObuster **points out. Human memory itself is never perfectly reliable - not even close. Our psyches won’t let them be. So I can’t imagine how anything which would require us to access our memory could ever be perfectly reliable, even were it to be made perfectly safe.
In fact, the 5th amendment is a protection against such as torturing to a confession, or pressing to a plea. You should not hate it.
I love where it came from, I don’t like what it’s become. There’s a vast middle ground that got eliminated, somehow. Compelling a person to testify in a modern court of law is hardly the same as crushing them under heavy stones until they talk.
Before I get too far into spouting off my opinions, I should note that IANA lawyer, and so my opinion are not informed by any legal expertise.
The OP said “used against suspects”. I’m failing to think of how it would be used against the suspect outside of court, with one possible exception. That exception would be to use the information to go out and dig up other supporting evidence. I would think that would be covered by the whole “fruit of the poisonous tree” thing.
As to blood tests, well, the blood (and components) itself IS the evidence, and with very few exceptions that I know of, cannot be collected without a court order.
I think that breathalyser and blood alcohol tests are done on the premise that driving is not a right to be violated, but a privilege that can be conditional. I think if you refuse a breathalyser you are violating the conditions of your driving privilege.
I would love for some lawyer to come along and clarify that for me.
The OP does specify the development of reliable truth serums, so under thosse conditions the point would not be relevant.
Well, I was assuming their use on an involuntary basis. I think submitting to it voluntarily would satisfy the objection of compelling self-incrimination. That does leave a question of admissibility in a court for other reasons.
If we satisfy the self-incrimination and the reliable/accurate issues, are there any other reasons why a court would not accept it as evidence?
:dubious:
Unless the “truth serum” then implants true visions to the subjects, (and I would love to imagine a credible mechanism for that) I don’t think your point is well thought out.
I would. It’s a drug that reduces someone to a state where they are incapable of not saying what the interrogator wants them to say. Anything learned by such a method should be treated as suspect.
I agree that it is virtually a guarantee that no one will torture you to give a false confession while you are on the witness stand on trial. But you could be beaten into a confession while being interrogated before the trial, and the confession introduced even if you never take the stand during it.
Si what exactly are you advocating? Something relatively simple like courts should be able to compel defendants to testify? Aren’t they likely to be extremely unreliable witnesses, particularly if they’re guilty?
Not necessarily. A lawyer who knows what he’s doing and masters rhetoric and psychology to a point the average person can’t begin to understand could certainly trick you into confessing something you didn’t do, or use an innocent slip of the tongue as a strong foundation for his argument that you did it you murdering bastard.
This is a hypothetical. The OP specifies a reliable truth serum. If the interrogator can essentially brainwash the suspect into saying anything, it is not a reliable truth serum. If something about the serum can result in the suspect saying anything other than the truth, it is not a reliable truth serum.
If the truth serum were 100% reliable, then I would support it - why should someone get away with a crime just because nobody saw it?
Does the fact that nobody saw it mean that there wasn’t a vicctim, or there were no negative effects on society?
I always thought laws such as “the 5th” were a (good and relevant) protection against confessions being beaten out of people. However a reliable (and side-effect free) drug that compels people to tell the truth would negate that.
And further, it is the TRUTH - it’s not like the serum can force people to lie.
But that was granted, what is the mechanism to then make a bloke that mistakenly thinks he was guilty of something into seeing the truth? Will the serum do it? Where then did the accurate information that will be implanted in his brain came from? The way I see it, if the serum is changing what the person sincerely believes as being the truth, then it is not a reliable serum.
The point remains, a hypothetical reliable serum will still have problems in some cases.
Ok, I didn’t quite understand what you were saying.
Am I restating your position correctly? If a suspect has a false memory of having committed a crime, then a serum would reveal that false belief as a confession, resulting in a false conviction. But without the serum, those suspects would remain mute, and therefor possibly not be falsely convicted.
Honestly, I hadn’t thought of that, though I imagine that would be an incredibly small number of people.
I also wonder whether, having this false guilt, which to me indicates some kind of mental impairment, would they also have a compulsion to confess? Even without a truth serum.
Just for reference, lie detector tests are sometimes allowed in court.
]'ve never heard that claim. Can you provide a cite?