That’s the reason I would want it suppressed. Sometimes people tell the truth if tortured, or even if they are threatened with torture, or merely threatened with abuse not considered torture. None of these methods should be allowed to gather evidence.
I’m saying I refuse to take the interrogator at his word that this is what is happening. Once you are deliberately rendering someone literally incapable of controlling their own actions, you have forfeited any right to hold those actions against them.
Make massive amounts in secret, introduce it into the water supply of every major city in the world, sit back and watch the chaos. Pick up the pieces and reign and a warlord over your piece of Hell.
I just read “Satan’s Children” in the book By Any Other name, available from Baen eBooks. So far, Halperin’s The Truth Machine and “Satan’s Children” both take the view that a perfect truth serum / lie detector would be a great boon to society. I wonder if this will hold for Sharon Green’s story as well.
The 5th Amendment wasn’t handed down by God as some moral absolute. We offer protection from self incrimination in order to prevent torture. If we had a perfect truth serum where we could get reliable information without damaging people then hell yes we should use it whether suspects are willing or not. You’d want some procedures in place to protect against the police just fishing for irrelevant info but questions such as, “Have you ever raped or murdered anyone?” are perfectly legitimate and not just questions about the crime the person was brought in for questioning about. Don’t want to be coerced into confessing such crimes? Then don’t rape or murder.
I recall a short story called Omnilingual where a subliminal program made everyone compulsively truthful; the result was the destruction of civilization and of most of humanity. People couldn’t stand each other, the birth rate dropped massively (because people didn’t want relationships anymore and couldn’t stand children), governments collapsed and so on. Also, fiction died out since it’s lies for entertainment.
Care would have to be taken that we don’t rely on truth serum evidence too much. At the very least, a psychologist screening should be mandatory along with the serum. I say this because a perfect truth serum can only cause the victim to divulge what they BELIEVE is the truth. If they’re delusional and convinced themselves of something untrue or believe they have moral even if not physical culpability in a matter (“I killed her” because she didn’t protect her) – or hell, if they were plain lied to by a third party not involved in the investigation, you still get false positives.
I’m worried that any widespread use of a truth serum is going to cause us to rely on it to such a degree that we consider the evidence infallible. I think if precautions are taken it’s not a problem if only administered in appropriate contexts, and heavily controlled so the Mafia or similar can’t use it, that it would be a useful tool.
I think you mean “And Nothing But the Truth” by Joseph H. Delaney - “Omnilingual” is the story (by Piper) about using scientific knowledge as a Rosetta Stone for translating an alien language.
Nope it was called Omnilingual; I recall thinking at the time “hey, that’s the same title as that old H. Beam Piper story!”
Ok. Then I recommend the Delaney story which is also about a computer program that subliminally enforces truth-telling, destroying fiction (and society).
Lois McMaster Bujold’s science fiction also deals with this issue. In the Miles Vorkosigan novels, he’s a secret agent and (later) an Auditor, which is basically a detective. There’s a drug called fast penta which is more or less the OP’s truth serum, so it impacts Vorkosigan’s jobs. Because of the danger that the enemy could get information from people, those with high security clearances are given artificial (and fatal) allergies to fast penta.
I saw “The Invention of Lying”. I don’t want to live in that world.
I don’t think it would. A key point of such a serum would be that we are finally forced to realize that our fantasy world of right-thinking people doesn’t exist. There would be some upheaval as people with authority attempted to abuse the position but as soon as the first union demands all parties in negotiation take the serum, I think your fears would evaporate. We’d be forced to deal with how often infidelity really happens, how frequent abortion and drug use are, how much we’re ripping each other off knowingly, and so on, and deal with it. But not with punishment, with a cooler appraisal of what life is really like.
After the upheaval. cough
Absolutely, just as soon as we use it on them. Can’t have a secret police, can you, with this kind of tech?
No, we couldn’t temper its usage at all, which is why it would be a good thing.
Has anyone pointed out that what is being described in the OP is not a “truth” serum, but a “belief” serum?
Yes, it would be a very good thing.
No, because it does exactly what we expect a perfect truth serum to do. Nobody expects a truth serum to make you the oracle of Delphi.
I think that, after a rough patch, people would adjust to a world where everyone was compulsively truthful. We’d just settle into a new normal in terms of how nice we expected the things others told us about ourselves to be, and carry on.
I personally think that politics would benefit tremendously from such a program.
Funny that a fiction writer should have such a poor understanding of what fiction is.
I would allow it, but only under extremely controlled circumstances. Mostly in the course of a time sensitive investigation, and under voluntary circumstances or with warrant, with legal counsel present. It could be an excellent tool for the immediate elimination of suspects. True, legally, we have the presumption of innocence, but in practical matters this falls short. No doubt in missing persons cases, murders and the like possible suspects would gladly take the serum to concretely confirm their innocence; particularly in cases where their alibi cannot be easily or quickly corroborated. The interviewer may not speak with the interviewee before administration of the serum, nor can any tangential information be discussed in front of the interviewee. Additionally, the police may only ask the following questions:
- Did you, (insert name here), commit (insert act here) ?
If “No”, go to 2. If “yes” then move to normal arrest procedures.
- Do you have any information that may be helpful to our investigation?
If “No” then administer counter drug and release former suspect immediately. If “yes” then follow-up questions may be asked that are directly relevant to the investigation as permitted by counsel.
I don’t see your problem - the average person who writes “And then the alien ate his face” is not referring back to an event that actually happened. That is to say, while it’s not what we would normally think of as a lie (since it lacks intent to decieve), it certainly isn’t a true statement either. I can see original fiction having a serious problem existing in a world where the the telling of untruths was inhibited.
After all, if fictional accounts and fish stories told on the witness stand weren’t inhibited, it wouldn’t be much of a truth serum, would it?
Yes/