wu :: forums - Print Page


    
      
        wu :: forums
        (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        general >> truth >> confession drug
        
(Message started by: Brian Schiebel on Jan 27^th, 2003, 12:42pm)

Title: confession drug
Post by Brian Schiebel on Jan 27^th, 2003, 12:42pm

is ther a drug that makes people tell the truth? Just curious.

Title: Re: confession drug
Post by william wu on Jan 27^th, 2003, 2:27pm

Typically the drug used to help coax out answers during interrogation is sodium penthothal, popularly named the truth serum. However, it isn't nearly as effective as Hollywood has presented it to be. Inhibitions are relaxed, and the effect is like a sleepiness or alcoholic stupor. Taken alone, this doesn't make people spew their innermost secrets. The interrogator must be effective at hypnosis techniques, asking the subject to think back to whenever or recall whatever.

It's still being debated whether sodium penthothal works, and whether the constitutional rights of interrogatees are violated if they are forced to take such drugs.

Title: Re: confession drug
Post by nicole on Oct 7^th, 2003, 8:03am

i beleive that such a drug does violate a person's rights. However it would be very helpful to many cases if it does work. Im sure more people feel like this. ::)

Title: Re: confession drug
Post by wowbagger on Oct 7^th, 2003, 8:36am

I agree with Nicole. If you allow a person to be forced to take such a drug, where do you draw the line between this and torture?

Title: Re: confession drug
Post by towr on Oct 7^th, 2003, 9:07am

I'd say torture leaves physical or psychological damage.. Using sodium pentahol, or just alcohol, to get people to blab out their secrets doesn't really do that. Except maybe guilt if it was a very important secret.
But even though I wouldn't call it torture doesn't mean I don't think it violates a person if it is forced upon them.
As for violations of a persons right (constitutional or otherwise), I don't think someone who would use it would care. There's enough semi-legal tricks to con someone out of his 'fundamental human rights', for instance just call them terrorists..
Where 'semi-legal' of course means that no one important enough really cares to be bothered about it enough to act.

Title: Re: confession drug
Post by Icarus on Oct 7^th, 2003, 5:56pm

Any information obtained by the use of chemical aids or by torture, or by threat of physical or economic harm to either the person or others is not admissable in US courts of law because of the right to remain silent. Obtaining information in this fashion can also be a violation of the unreasonable search and seizure clause, if done by an agent of the government. But the rules here are not nearly as tight as they are for admissibility. For private agents, the constitutional restrictions do not apply, but federal law still prohibits most such activity.

Terrorists are still subject to the same restrictions. But these rights are guaranteed to citizens, and are extended to foreigners not acting against the government. But foreign nationals who enter this country with the intent to harm it are not so protected. Even so, this must be proven, otherwise, whats-his-face, the "20th hijacker" whose name I can't remember how to spell, wouldn't be allowed this circus he's made of his defense.

Prisoners of war are protected by the Geneva Conventions. Such prisoners can be held to the end of all hostilities, but then are required to be repatriated when their captor and their country resume peace. But the conventions are not nearly so clear for citizens of uninvolved countries who choose to take part in a conflict. Generally, their native countries will attempt to safeguard their rights by diplomatic means. But if the particular situation is one that is odious to their country, they may find themselves with no advocate. Thus the fate of the non-Afghans captured in the Afghan war. It may take some years yet before they are all released, because their own governments would rather that they did not exist, and we are not particularly ready to forgive and forget those who came to the aid of those responsible for Sept. 11.

Title: Re: confession drug
Post by towr on Oct 7^th, 2003, 11:55pm

on 10/07/03 at 17:56:37, Icarus wrote:

It may not be admissable in court, but it doesn't have to if you can bully someone into plea-bargaining. That way they can go directly to jail without their day in court.
It's very effective against poor people which can't afford a good lawyer (more-so even when the laywer that's assigned to them is working against them, like was exposed in the case of one town in Micheal Moore's "the awfull truth" some years back). And it is also very effective for instance against the Dutch citizens our country is forced to extradite under US pressure, despite questionable proof (usually witnesses that just put forward some names to lower their own sentence), for drug related crimes. Since they're far from home, and not used to the much harsher US-prison system and can't afford a good lawyer, they're pretty much forced to plea-bargain if that means they only have to go to jail a year or so, which they can then sit out here in the Netherlands, rather than 10 or 20 years in a US prison..

It's not that hard to force people to tell whatever lies you want.. Nor to do it in a way the law doesn't care..

Title: Re: confession drug
Post by jac on Apr 13^th, 2006, 12:16am

i just thought this might be related to the topic. when people tell lies their heart actually beats faster. so this may be another way to ensure someone's telling the truth. however it needs to depend on the questions the potential liars are answering to obtain the necessary information.

Title: Re: confession drug
Post by towr on Apr 13^th, 2006, 12:38am

People's heart beat is quite variable in itself. So it's not a reliable indication of lying if it's beating faster.
Not to mention there's many other reasons the heart might start beating faster, they might simply be scared or otherwise stressed.

Title: Re: confession drug
Post by anonymous on Jul 30^th, 2006, 11:39am

And yet people still think that lie detectors are 99.99% right. (-_-)

Title: Re: confession drug
Post by towr on Jul 30^th, 2006, 1:36pm

on 07/30/06 at 11:39:05, anonymous wrote:

And yet people still think that lie detectors are 99.99% right. (-_-)

That illusion is probably one of the reasons it still works on a good number of people. Lie detectors work very poorly on people that think they work poorly.

Title: Re: confession drug
Post by anonymous on Jul 31^st, 2006, 1:05am

You could simply control your heartbeat. and you could get away with your lies.
Your heartrate could increase even though you're not lying.

I'd say it works poorly. Maybe to pressure people to tell the truth, but that's pretty much it.

Title: Re: confession drug
Post by towr on Jul 31^st, 2006, 11:28pm

on 07/31/06 at 01:05:57, anonymous wrote:

You could simply control your heartbeat.

Most people can't do that, though.

Quote:

I'd say it works poorly. Maybe to pressure people to tell the truth, but that's pretty much it.

That may be pretty much it, but it's often enough. Polygraphs aren't admissible in court anyway, so the only use they have is in interrogation so you can find more evidence or get a confession.

Title: Re: confession drug
Post by rmsgrey on Aug 1^st, 2006, 5:08am

How does a controlled heartbeat compare with a normal one anyway? If people can tell you're controlling your heartbeat, OK, they may not be able to pick up on lies directly, but they'll know not to trust the results...

Title: Re: confession drug
Post by anonymous on Aug 11^th, 2006, 11:41am

They probaby wouldn't be able to tell that you're controlling your heartbeat, so then they wouldn't have more reason to not trust the results.

Title: Re: confession drug
Post by UNKNOWN on Feb 5^th, 2007, 5:56pm

u can always convince yourself a lie is a truth to get past a detector... :-/