Question for the posters

[Sandy]

We have a man in custody who may have been involved in kidnapping the young coed from South Dakota. Her blood was found in his car and they have pulled in him for questioning.

Since November 22nd she has been missing from her family with little hope of finding her alive. It might be possible if the kidnapper has hidden her away somewhere. Time is running out and I want to know if it is legal to give him a truth serum and question where he has taken her or even when he saw her last.

The man is a multi-convicted sex offender and has spent more than half of his life in prison already. I do not believe in physical torture but certainly a little sodium pentathol wouldn't hurt him but could stop this terrible suspense of where the girl is.

I don't know how people like her parents aren't demanding something like this. They still profess to have hope that she is still alive.

Comments?

[Missouri Mule]

Highly unlikely that she is still alive. And one of the best reasons that every woman be aware of how to defend herself against these predators. Never, never, never go with an abductor. Better to be badly injured on a parking lot than to be killed somewhere else as most likely happened here. I was watching a movie about Ted Bundy last night and the girl who escaped just beat the stuffing out of him to escape from his car. That led to a description and he was eventually caught (the first time.)

The larger problem is why these predators are ever released back into society. They are just like the Ted Bundys of the world. They will not stop until they are at room temperature.

I'm sure the ACLU would say his constitutional rights would be abridged to use truth serum. I don't have any problem, however. Use whatever is required to get the truth. If one of us had the perp in our possession and knew time was of the essence would we not do everyting legal and illegal to get the truth? There is a certain principle of law that it is permissable to commit a smaller crime to prevent a larger crime.

[KWJams]

I agree with Mule :D

The terms of parole should be structured to allow it.

Being a felon has cost his right to vote. Being a convicted felon should also include the loss of some rights of liberty as well.

[Sandy]

thank you Mule, I absolutely agree. My heart breaks for those parents who may never find her dead or alive.

[SantaMonica]

http://www.finddru.com/howtohelp.htm

I am pretty much in favor of the Baathist regime's interrogating policies where this man is concerned.

Knowing that we won't be adopting these practices anytime soon, sadly, it'll boil down to finding her purely by accident.

We protect our "alleged" criminals much better in this country than we do our victims.

[RepublicanGal]

"There is a certain principle of law that it is permissable to commit a smaller crime to prevent a larger crime.
"

Missouri Mule, I couldn't find this anywhere. (Maybe I didn't define my search terms well enough.)

[Blueangel]

Sandy!

This reminds me very much of a case that occured a couple of miles from where I live. I believe that it was the first case in modern British legal history where a conviction was secured without ever finding the body of the victim or gaining an admission of guilt from the defendant.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2499991.stm

[ronin_asano]

Originally posted by Sandy
We have a man in custody who may have been involved in kidnapping the young coed from South Dakota. Her blood was found in his car and they have pulled in him for questioning.

Since November 22nd she has been missing from her family with little hope of finding her alive. It might be possible if the kidnapper has hidden her away somewhere. Time is running out and I want to know if it is legal to give him a truth serum and question where he has taken her or even when he saw her last.

The man is a multi-convicted sex offender and has spent more than half of his life in prison already. I do not believe in physical torture but certainly a little sodium pentathol wouldn't hurt him but could stop this terrible suspense of where the girl is.

I don't know how people like her parents aren't demanding something like this. They still profess to have hope that she is still alive.

Comments?

clearly, forcibly injecting this guy with truth serum would be a violation of his 5th admendment rights.

[Sandy]

The police have given up the search for this girl so she will remain missing until the state thaws out. This convicted sex maniac refused to talk about her. If he is put in prison, he won't live 3 days. This kind of crime tends to itself in prison.

Being the mother of two girls, I would be infuriated that the killer could go free and the girl ends up dead.

[Missouri Mule]

RepublicanGal: "DEFENSES TO CRIME

Both statutory law and the common law provide many defenses to crime. Other than having an alibi (which is not technically a defense but a denial), there are two main types of defenses: (1) Justifications and (2) Excuses. These terms are not easily defined, and the distinction is less than perfect. Justifications refer to situations in which the defendant doesn't deny they did it but that they did it for all the right reasons, an appeal to higher loyalty or ideals (as in self-defense) or more important reasons (as in necessity), for instance."

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/293/293lect06.htm

[Strel]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
I'm sure the ACLU would say his constitutional rights would be abridged to use truth serum. I don't have any problem, however. Use whatever is required to get the truth. If one of us had the perp in our possession and knew time was of the essence would we not do everyting legal and illegal to get the truth? There is a certain principle of law that it is permissable to commit a smaller crime to prevent a larger crime.


Indeed, such an interrogation would run seriously afoul of the Fifth Amendment.

[Sandy]

In America it is now no problem lying under oath! We have defense attorneys who know damn well their clients are guilty but refuse to step up even when a young life is in jeopardy.

We needed to find that girl quickly and this creep of a sex offender and his attorney are playing games with the system.

[Strel]

Lying under oath has nothing to do with it.

No one can be compelled to testify against themselves. Giving an defendant a truth serum (even IF it could be relied upon to garner accurate information) is tantamount to forcing a confession under duress.

In situations like this, it is especially frustrating...were it up to me (personally) I would beat it out of him with a whip. But the law is the law and must be respected in all circumstances. You cannot drug people into confessing to a crime, at least not in the United States of America.

[SantaMonica]

We really ought to think about reinstating public executions. If guilty, Mr Alfonso(?) could be our very first candidate. I'm sure he won't be missed and might very well be a force for stopping other predator murderers of innocent people if they could actually SEE what a bullett to the brain looks like...

Excuse me my harshness, I am simply fed up.

[Sandy]

Lying under oath has everything to do with it. Michael Jackson and O.J. both lied under oath that they were telling the truth and even Clinton was able to get away with it. No our courts are worthless and to save the life of that girl something should have been done 3 weeks ago. I doubt seriously that she ran off with a cult leader as Elizabeth Smart did and anyone who knew the church knew damn well she was ripe for following anyone who claimed to be a leader in their church. This latest girl had much better sense and a better background for thinking for herself. Someone kidnapped her and for some reason the blood found in the kidnapper's car has not yet be tested to see if it her blood. Our methods should be streamlined for efficiency or we will lose many more young girls to these fiends.

Our justice grinds exceedingly slow and may have just allowed BinLaden to get away with the destruction of the twin towers. Where has the adrenaline gone in our enforcement institutions?

[Strel]

Originally posted by Sandy
Lying under oath has everything to do with it. Michael Jackson and O.J. both lied under oath that they were telling the truth and even Clinton was able to get away with it.

Again, what does this have to do with the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination? The law isn't about whether this scumbag will lie or not, but about compelling someone to testify against themselves, which is not something that we do in a democracy such as the U.S.

No our courts are worthless and to save the life of that girl something should have been done 3 weeks ago.

Hardly surprising, considering that this is not the purpose of our courts. If you want to blame someone for that, blame the cops.

Someone kidnapped her and for some reason the blood found in the kidnapper's car has not yet be tested to see if it her blood. Our methods should be streamlined for efficiency or we will lose many more young girls to these fiends.

I agree, but since we don't have the details of why testing was delayed it is a little hard to lay blame here.

Our justice grinds exceedingly slow and may have just allowed BinLaden to get away with the destruction of the twin towers. Where has the adrenaline gone in our enforcement institutions?

If you want quick, adrenaline-based justice, I suggest you move to Iran. They don't waste time worrying about people's rights or constitutional provisions or piddling little details about trying to actually figure out if someone is really guilty or not.:rolleyes:

[Sandy]

I want a justice system that refuses to allow an innocent young girl to be dismissed as worthless to protect some savage fiend's rights.

We have become so politically correct about these criminals I just wonder where it will end?

If he were truly innocent why didn't he say so in the beginning? He said nothing to anyone for over a week. I sincerely hope they let the bastard go and let the people handle it. The girl has to be dead by now and nobody seems to give a damn! Don't give me this 5th Amendment rights crap when a young coed's life is in the balance. Would it have been any different had this been a young man?

The same mess was happening in San Diego when a kidnapper took a child living in his own neighborhood. He put her in his van and drove her all over the area and into Arizona and then on his way home killed her and threw her into a ditch somewhere. His attorneys knew what he had done and were working on a plea bargain to safe his worthless life if he would point out where the body was. Some campers found it first and the attorneys continued to point to the parents as the killers. Nobody tells the truth these days and everyone in that court room lied! The attorneys knew their client was the killer and yet they held this information out of the court room. If this is American justice, it sure as hell sucks!

Maybe it would help if someone would add a 11th Commandment saying Thou shall not lie under oath! Maybe then the religious right might pay attention to the truth.

[Strel]

Originally posted by Sandy
I want a justice system that refuses to allow an innocent young girl to be dismissed as worthless to protect some savage fiend's rights.

Sound's great, but at what price? We could wipe out all crime in a few years, if you prefer to live in a totalitarian system. We madea choice as a society to adopt the system that we have. This system has up sides and down sides. The fact that it is illegal for the cops in this particular case to beat or drug some answers out of this scumbag is one of the down sides of our societal choice. We can't make exceptions if you want the system to survive.

We have become so politically correct about these criminals I just wonder where it will end?

You think that the Fifth Amendment is mere "political correctness"?

If he were truly innocent why didn't he say so in the beginning? He said nothing to anyone for over a week.

Because the law of the land says that he doesn't have to say anything and that he is innocent until proven guilty.

I sincerely hope they let the bastard go and let the people handle it. The girl has to be dead by now and nobody seems to give a damn!

Be careful what you wish for. Would you like us to return to lynching random black people just because some other black guy committed or crime? What you are proposing is anarchy and barbarity - not to mention murder.

Don't give me this 5th Amendment rights crap when a young coed's life is in the balance. Would it have been any different had this been a young man?

No, it wouldn't and shouldn't be different. Also, if you think that the Bill of Rights is "crap", maybe you SHOULD move to Iran until to develop a better appreciation of democracy and a society based on the rule of law. Don't let your righteous and understandable concern for this poor girl's welfare cloud your judgment...

The same mess was happening in San Diego when a kidnapper took a child living in his own neighborhood. He put her in his van and drove her all over the area and into Arizona and then on his way home killed her and threw her into a ditch somewhere. His attorneys knew what he had done and were working on a plea bargain to safe his worthless life if he would point out where the body was. Some campers found it first and the attorneys continued to point to the parents as the killers. Nobody tells the truth these days and everyone in that court room lied! The attorneys knew their client was the killer and yet they held this information out of the court room. If this is American justice, it sure as hell sucks!

I had no idea you are telepathic. :rolleyes: Like I said, if you think our system sucks, maybe Sharia law would be a better choice for you. This defendant's lawyers did their jobs. God forbid I am ever accused of a crime, but if I am I hope my lawyers fight tooth and nail to at least get me a fair hearing if I'm guilty or get me off if I'm not. Innocent people DO get sent to prison and executed even under our system. We just made a choice of system that minimizes this, even if it occasionally allows someone like OJ to get away with murder. It is a value choice.


Maybe it would help if someone would add a 11th Commandment saying Thou shall not lie under oath! Maybe then the religious right might pay attention to the truth.

I think "not bearing false witness" is already a Commandment, honey! But you have a point...these religious nutjobs that get all ruffled when someone enforces the law and takes their stone idol out of a courthouse don't spend much time thinking about how to obey the tenets of their own religion...


I feel as you do about this poor girl, and if the guy in custody is guilty, I hope they execute him but good. But even this girl's life is not worth destroying one of our most important freedoms. Millions have died defending this country and these rights already. Eviscerating the Fifth Amendment to save hers means the rest of them died in vain.

[Sandy]

My request for something like this, if the victim might still be alive, would be to give him a quiet shot of Sodium Pentathol and ask him where he hid her. If she were found dead than no need to push it. We need to consider the victim in this case.

[cpwill]

Originally posted by SantaMonica
http://www.finddru.com/howtohelp.htm

I am pretty much in favor of the Baathist regime's interrogating policies where this man is concerned.

Knowing that we won't be adopting these practices anytime soon, sadly, it'll boil down to finding her purely by accident.

We protect our "alleged" criminals much better in this country than we do our victims.



nah, torture rarely gets' credible results.

use the truth serum, then throw him into the general population and "let slip" that he's a pedophile who murdered a little girl.

the man does have his rights, but those rights were put in place when torture was the form of forced confessions; not truth serum. how do we alter the law to fit technology? perhaps anything taken from him while under the truth serum need not be admissible to a court of law, allowing us to still solve crimes without "endangering" people's rights. personally; i think truth serum administration would be a perfect way to solve some of the problems with our current justice department, if it could be perfected.

[Sandy]

The N.D. police will make an announcement this afternoon and report that the blood on the knive found in the car of the man accused was that of Dru. Many of the police believe she may still be alive. Give the rotter a truth serum shot and make him say where she is!!!! Hell, I'll do it! Let me at him!

[Strel]

You guys think this is the first time this situation has ever arisen?


There is a reason that police aren't allowed to use truth serum in this country, and it is a compelling one. I tried to explain, but you do not want to see the reasons...

[Sandy]

You are one snippy poster. I started this thread to see just how interested you were on debating the problems facing us all. This is a very strange group of people and I figured out that you all must still be in high school.

I left many of the other threads when I discovered that this is indeed a religious forum with the majority of posters nothing but gay bashers.

I fear this may be the future of American thought and I hope I am wrong. Whistlestopper is now off my favorites list and my posting days are behind me.

[Missouri Mule]

This is one of those situations that are unanswerable. Most everyone believes to a certainty that he is guilty as sin. The evidence is overwhelming. Let us suppose she is tied up somewhere and her body is using the last of its resources to survive. Do we apply the necessary pressure to force him to talk or do we allow her to die in misery?

If she were any of our's daughters what would we do? I think most would opt to put his head in a vice until he told the truth.

Would any of us, had we the opportunity, opted NOT to kill Hitler to prevent WWII? Bin Laden to prevent 9/11?

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by Sandy
This is a very strange group of people and I figured out that you all must still be in high school.

I left many of the other threads when I discovered that this is indeed a religious forum with the majority of posters nothing but gay bashers. If you took the time to return to the threads you have left, you would see that we're not all the same.

I'm 38, not a gay basher and agnostic.

[Sandy]

I have asked that I receive no more emails from Whistlestoppers. I don't have the time to defend my opinions on those subjects that interest me.

The elections are coming and I have some articles to write!

[Missouri Mule]

I think you should reconsider.

[Strel]

Originally posted by Sandy
You are one snippy poster. I started this thread to see just how interested you were on debating the problems facing us all. This is a very strange group of people and I figured out that you all must still be in high school.

Who is calling who snippy??:rolleyes:

... when I discovered that this is indeed a religious forum with the majority of posters nothing but gay bashers. .

Hmm...I don't fit either of these categories, so I guess I am an aberration?

I fear this may be the future of American thought and I hope I am wrong. Whistlestopper is now off my favorites list and my posting days are behind me.

Well then, did you expect to come to a political forum and have everyone simply agree with your opinions? If that is what you expect, then perhaps you should argue before an audience of stuffed animals that won't give you any back-talk! :)

[ranger]

Originally posted by Sandy
The N.D. police will make an announcement this afternoon and report that the blood on the knive found in the car of the man accused was that of Dru. Many of the police believe she may still be alive. Give the rotter a truth serum shot and make him say where she is!!!! Hell, I'll do it! Let me at him!

Yeah, do force the "rotter" to tell the truth at any expence. Lets torture him if we must. After all. We think he is guilty.

Matters not that he may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe he invoked his 5th amendment rights because it is the right thing to do. Maybe he is quiet because he was committing a different crime and does not want to incriminate himself in a crime not now known.

Hey, lets amend the "Patriot Act" to include the use of torture or drugs in the interrogation of all criminals.

Lets turn him over to a crowd and let them deal with him. If they find a different person committed the crime at the end of their investigation, so what?

Just as long as Sandy and friends get their way.

It only sounds like a witch hunt!

[cpwill]

since truth serum is not torture, though, i wonder at whether or not we are cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

as the only one who truly knows is the criminal; wouldn't our system be more just if we got it from them without hurting them? wouldn't more innocent men go free? woudn't more guilty men be put away, never to harm others again?

it just makes sense to me.

[ranger]

Originally posted by cpwill
since truth serum is not torture, though, i wonder at whether or not we are cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

as the only one who truly knows is the criminal; wouldn't our system be more just if we got it from them without hurting them? wouldn't more innocent men go free? woudn't more guilty men be put away, never to harm others again?

it just makes sense to me.

Please address your opinion of the Constitution of the United States
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So what do we do with the Constitution? Wouldn't the use of drugs to get information from a SUSPECTED CRIMINAL be a violation of "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself",
Once you FORCE a confession you cannot prosecute the suspect!

How would more innocent men go free by taking away their Constitutional rights? Do you really want to deny all citizens their rights under the 5th amendment or just the right to not incriminate themselves? Do you want all citizens or just the guilty ones to loose these rights?

[Strel]

Don't waste your time, ranger. I already tried to explain the importance of upholding the Fifth Amendment but some here cannot see past this individual case...

[cpwill]

it is foolish to allow sentimentalism to destroy lives.

[Strel]

It is even more foolish to permit sentimentalism to destroy a democracy.

[ranger]

Originally posted by Strelnikov
Don't waste your time, ranger. I already tried to explain the importance of upholding the Fifth Amendment but some here cannot see past this individual case...

I hope those that want to ignore the 5th amendment are never accused of a crime they did not commit. cpwill apparently cares little for the Constitution. I guess he believes the Constitution to be "sentimental" and it's fair and equal application "foolish".

Guess I won't be voting for him in any elections.

[Strel]

cpwill is actually a very sensible fellow most of the time (like most of us Pravda refugees -- all the sensible ones left!).

The error occurs when one looks at a single, particular case and concludes from the result of that case that the whole system is flawed.

When the 5th Amendment "works", it gets no notice at all. People take it for granted, never fully understanding that it (and a handful of other Constitutional provisions) are all that really stand between a successful democracy and a police state.

It really sucks that they haven't found this girl. It sucks that OJ, who was obviously guilty, got away with murder. But these things are going to happen whether we torture or drug people or not. At least in our system we have safeguards against the government committing the offenses.

What would you people rather have? A system that allows a few guilty persons to go free once in a while, or one that ensures that the innocent will never get fair treatment?

It is a value choice. Having experienced the latter at the handsof the British, our forefathers chose the former.

[Simon666]

Well, I have a hard time choosing between the two options, which is why I stayed out until now as both sides make very good points. I would like to say that ignoring those rights may open the door for other violations of those rights, but that the law isn't there for the law but the law is there for the citizens. If a too literal interpretation of the law would hurt citizens, I'm in favor of in individual cases and with public agreement doing what is the best in the interest of the citizens and not what is best in the interest of the law.

[Strel]

", I'm in favor of in individual cases and with public agreement doing what is the best in the interest of the citizens and not what is best in the interest of the law."


That may be possible under a civil law system, such as is employed in Europe. In America, this is not only illegal, but would result in a disaster, legally speaking. The Constitution does not permit selective enforcement of this or that law. What would happen if a precedent is set that anyone can simply override someone else's constitutional rights by a simple popular vote?

Why not just bring back the guillotine? We can chop off the heads of whoever the public agrees they don't like.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Strelnikov
That may be possible under a civil law system, such as is employed in Europe.
That's not possible in Europe I think, maybe in the UK. I'm not sure though as I'm no lawyer. You make good points as I have already said. I just said what I would favor in an ideal world.

[Strel]

I think the difference is that in Europe, a court decision cannot effect or change the state of the law. The courts interpret the law as it applies to a particular case, but the law does not and cannot change as a result of the case. Only the lawmaking body can actually change the law.

In America, a court decision can and often does change the entire state of the law. This can be a good thing in most cases, but creates the danger that making an "exception" in a single case means that the rule as a whole comes under threat.

[Blueangel]

I couldn't swear to this without checking with my brother, but if an aspect of a case does not fall within established law, it would be taken down to London and tried as a test case, or the issue would be brought before the Law Lords for a decision.

My area of knowledge is only Employment Law and various cases cause the Employment Act to be updated annually.

An old friend of mine was used as a test case 20years ago when legislation was introduced regarding the use of C.B. radios. She was put up in a hotel in London for a month while the case was heard.

[Strel]

I'm not quite sure how stare decisis is handled differently in the UK than in the US, only that both systems differ from the civil (Roman) law system used by practically the rest of the world, except where the Islamic courts hold sway.

In the U.S., any case can potentially change the law, and no governmental body has the power to "select" something as a test case. It's rather a melee sometimes...

...which is one reason why the U.S. is such a paradise for lawyers! Social issues here are decided as much by litigation as they are by legislation. ;)

[Voice Of Reason]

Originally posted by Sandy
We have a man in custody who may have been involved in kidnapping the young coed from South Dakota. Her blood was found in his car and they have pulled in him for questioning.

Since November 22nd she has been missing from her family with little hope of finding her alive. It might be possible if the kidnapper has hidden her away somewhere. Time is running out and I want to know if it is legal to give him a truth serum and question where he has taken her or even when he saw her last.

The man is a multi-convicted sex offender and has spent more than half of his life in prison already. I do not believe in physical torture but certainly a little sodium pentathol wouldn't hurt him but could stop this terrible suspense of where the girl is.

I don't know how people like her parents aren't demanding something like this. They still profess to have hope that she is still alive.

Comments?

Sandy, I never thought I would see it.........You with a Conservative viewpoint........:)

[Voice Of Reason]

Originally posted by Voice Of Reason
Sandy, I never thought I would see it.........You with a Conservative viewpoint........:)


In my opinion A Sexual Predator should only be given one strike and your out.............

Life in prison without chance of parole or if a death occurs the death penalty and I will pull the switch............

[Strel]

What makes you think that is a "conservative" viewpoint?

If anything, it is putting an unreasonable amount of power in the hands of the government. This is the kind of thing that went on in totalitarian communist regimes.

[Locke]

I really can't see any reason not to use a truth serum, as long as there are enough witnesses when it is given and him questioned, and if he isn't allergic to it (that would just give him a law suit, lol)

[cpwill]

can you justify allowing innocents to die so that a criminal won't have to admit to being a criminal, and so that innocent men won't have to be shown to be innocent?

[ranger]

Originally posted by cpwill
can you justify allowing innocents to die so that a criminal won't have to admit to being a criminal, and so that innocent men won't have to be shown to be innocent?

As I asked before and you failed to reply.

How do reconcile the Constitutional issue of self incrimination? Or do we just throw out the Constitution when it becomes inconvenient?

[Strel]

"can you justify allowing innocents to die so that a criminal won't have to admit to being a criminal, and so that innocent men won't have to be shown to be innocent?"


When you put it that way, of course not! But as we have tried to explain, it isn't that simple. You cannot just ignore the law - particularly one as important as the Fifth Amendment - when you feel like it. Once you start doing that you might as well throw out the whole system and the baby with the bathwater. At that point you no longer have a system at all.

You can't have a civilized democracy based on the rule of law and ignore that law when you feel like it.

[azov]

strelnikov and moi are about to do something which we rarely did on the Pravdaboard:

Agree . . . :eek:

[Strel]

Ha! I agreed with you now and then azov. It was hard to be heard what with the crowd of NeoCons trying to string you up from the nearest virtual tree. ;)

[EvilTwinFelicia]

As of today- 12/15, the search for Dru has been called off. The searchers cited many reasons, mainly the weather. I have a feeling the searchers believe as many of us do-- the woman is no longer alive.

At some point, there will be a search to recover her body.

Sad.

[azov]

Originally posted by SantaMonica
We really ought to think about reinstating public executions. If guilty, Mr Alfonso(?) could be our very first candidate. I'm sure he won't be missed and might very well be a force for stopping other predator murderers of innocent people if they could actually SEE what a bullett to the brain looks like...

Excuse me my harshness, I am simply fed up.

And you do know what it looks like? And this is a great thing?

Actually, Americans see more violence on TV and in the movies than any other culture on earth. They would merely see it as more entertainment, and learn less fom "The Execution Show" t han they do "JAG."

[mahayana]

Interesting discussion. I have often thought that were I charged with a crime I did not commit, I would request a lie detector test. Not usable in court, some can fool it, but you or I could not.

I hadn't thought of requesting truth serum.

This issue has been discussed on "NYPD Blue" on TV. A detective asks Sippoweitz how he decides when to beat a confession out of a "perp." Sippoweitz replies, only when you're "sure it's the guy, and you're sure he did it."

Of course, that's fiction, hah!

Also, I want to invite everyone with opinions about the Death Penalty and Penology over to my thread in Culture, "On Society."

[cpwill]

Originally posted by ranger
As I asked before and you failed to reply.

How do reconcile the Constitutional issue of self incrimination? Or do we just throw out the Constitution when it becomes inconvenient?

i'm sorry, i thought i had answered.

i believe perhaps a compromise can be worked out wherein in these cases the (alleged) criminal can be given the serum, but it can only be used as evidence if the defense agrees. basically this would allow A: innocents to be found in timely manners and possibly save lives and B: wrongly accused men to go free while guilty men have the exact same case before them as if they had not been given the serum at all.

[green lantern]

Originally posted by ronin_asano
clearly, forcibly injecting this guy with truth serum would be a violation of his 5th admendment rights. true, but there is circumstantial evidence linking him to her, i think we should have the right to do this, with this circumstantiial evidence.

[ranger]

Originally posted by green lantern
true, but there is circumstantial evidence linking him to her, i think we should have the right to do this, with this circumstantiial evidence.

And then do what with the Constitution?

[cpwill]

the 5th applies to in a court of law, since such evidence would not be admissible, i do not see how it interferes with the search for a missing (and possibly still alive) girl.

[ranger]

Originally posted by cpwill
the 5th applies to in a court of law, since such evidence would not be admissible, i do not see how it interferes with the search for a missing (and possibly still alive) girl.

You say the 5th amendment of the constitution only applies in a court of law? So the police can use what ever tactic they wish to get you to incriminate yourself?

A polygraph is not admissable in court either but the suspect MUST give consent for the test.

[Strel]

...only applies in a court of law.

***?


I think cpwill needs to go read Miranda v. Arizona. It isn't just about preventing the use of the "fruit of the poisonous tree", as illegally obtained evidence is often referred to, but about STOPPING the means by which it is obtained, too. That's why we have section 1983 civil rights suits, etc.

cpwill - It is already possible to people to volunteer for lie detector tests, and theoretically one could volunteer to undergo an examination under truth serum (though I've never heard of it) to help defend themselves.

But no way no how could you force someone to be interrogated in this manner, whether you used the evidence or not. Maybe in the good old days of East Germany, but not in America.

[Ronnieraygun]

Certainly the 5th amendment applies here, but let's assume you could use sodium Pentathol to extract information from a suspected criminal. How useful would the information be? Some people respond to truth serum differently than others. How would we know the information extracted is accurate? Moreover, how would we know what reaction the suspect would have to the drug? You could even kill him if he had a bad reaction.

Its a fact that the use of sodium pentathol in an interrogation tool has yielded mixed results. Hence, it is no longer used for this purpose.


However this is all speculative. I happen to agree with Strelnikov. Everyone wants this man interrogated in this manner because we "know he's guilty". What about the poor sap who has the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and he ends up being treated in the same manor because we have set this precedent? There are techniques of interrogating a suspect that are more fruitful than truth serum. This is a dangerous path.

[Mirror Lake 444]

Quote: "However this is all speculative. I happen to agree with Strelnikov. Everyone wants this man interrogated in this manner because we "know he's guilty". What about the poor sap who has the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and he ends up being treated in the same manor because we have set this precedent? There are techniques of interrogating a suspect that are more fruitful than truth serum. This is a dangerous path. [/B][/QUOTE]

You hit that right on the nose! You can't make exceptions and disregard the constitution whenever it is convenient.

As far as the death penalty being a deterent (mentioned earlieir) I seriously doubt it. These people are sick and out of control, and I'm sure the last thing on their mind is what is going to happen to them if they are caught. I think we should hold psychiatrists that tell us this folks are no longer a risk responsible. But in reality these people should never be set free period.