• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge approves use of 'truth serum' on accused Aurora shooter James Holmes

Pilot

Pilot

Banned
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
522
Reaction score
270
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Legal and medical experts are questioning the decision of a judge in Colorado to allow James Holmes, the suspected gunman in the Aurora cinema shooting, to be tested with a "truth serum" should he plead not guilty by reason of insanity.

Judge William Sylvester ruled that in the event of Holmes pleading insanity his prosecutors would be permitted to interrogate him while he is under the influence of a medical drug designed to loosen him up and get him to talk. The idea would be that such a "narcoanalytic interview" would be used to confirm whether or not he had been legally insane when he embarked on his shooting spree on 20 July last year.

The precise identity of the drug that would be used has not been released, other than a statement that it would be "medically appropriate", but it would most likely be a short-acting barbiturate such as sodium amytal.

William Shepherd, chair of the criminal justice section of the American Bar Association, whose members include both prosecutors and defence lawyers, said that the proposed use of a "truth drug" to ascertain the veracity of a defendant's plea of insanity was highly unusual in the US. He predicted it would provoke intense legal argument relating to Holmes's right to remain silent under the fifth amendment of the US constitution.

"If a defendant loses his right to remain silent because the court has authorised the use of drugs that make him talk, that would raise all sorts of fifth amendment issues that both sides would have to address."

Shepherd also wondered whether some members of the trial jury would object to "the sound of the government forcing a truth serum down the throat of a defendant".

Full story: Judge approves use of 'truth serum' on accused Aurora shooter James Holmes | World news | guardian.co.uk
Click to expand...

Are there situations where this should be allowed? Personally, I think it is unconstitutional and I don't like the precedent it sets.
 
Pilot said:
Are there situations where this should be allowed? Personally, I think it is unconstitutional and I don't like the precedent it sets.
Click to expand...

I don't like the idea of truth serum!

By contrast Holmes should have been shot while escaping!!:twocents:
 
"**** you, 5th amendment!"

Will be one of the easiest appeals ever, and the guy will walk free because of this idiocy.
 
What a ridiculous ruling.

Why would such a thing even be necessary? They caught him with guns and ammo. He had freaking red dyed hair so he was relatively easy to pick out in a crowd. They know that his apartment was all booby trapped. He's guilty. Put him in front of a jury and get the damned verdict.
 
I'm a little confused.

In the first paragraph, you say that the defendant will be "allowed" to be tested and in the second you say that the judge "ruled" ... "prosecutors would be permitted to interigate" him. If the judge is requiring that the defendant must agree to the test as a condition of his plea, that may be unconstitutional. If, however, the defense has agreed to the test and has asked the court to admit the results of the test as part of their plea, that is a different story entirely and likely constitutional and not binding on any other case/defendant.
 
I do not agree, no person should be forced to help the prosecution in their attempts to convict him, he has the right to remain silent and with this truth serum he will be forced to talk against his will.
 
Deuce said:
"**** you, 5th amendment!"

Will be one of the easiest appeals ever, and the guy will walk free because of this idiocy.
Click to expand...

I don't know about him walking free. Convincing a jury to let him go would be next to impossible. Regardless of the arguments and even the law, this case is so emotional and there is no doubt that he did in fact commit the crime. Finding a jury that would care if his rights were violated is unlikely.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm a little confused.

In the first paragraph, you say that the defendant will be "allowed" to be tested and in the second you say that the judge "ruled" ... "prosecutors would be permitted to interigate" him. If the judge is requiring that the defendant must agree to the test as a condition of his plea, that may be unconstitutional. If, however, the defense has agreed to the test and has asked the court to admit the results of the test as part of their plea, that is a different story entirely and likely constitutional and not binding on any other case/defendant.
Click to expand...

Not the case here.
The judge approved the use of a “narcoanalytic interview,” a decades-old process in which patients are given drugs to reduce their inhibitions. The prospect of such an interview alarmed defense lawyers, who filed documents opposing the technique.
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/u...s-holmes-could-be-given-truth-serum.html?_r=0
 
This is very exciting. I have no sympathy for the man who is proven beyond any doubt to be convicted of mass murder. They should issue the drug to him and fry him later!

Barbiturates are sedative drugs that effect the nervous system. It's influence is dosage dependent. If experts are to issue it they may spare Holmes from overdose and give him enough to be in a hypnotic state so as he will not be able to be conscious of what he says and thus be unable to control his speech. He would thus answer the questions truthfully and not hide behind amendements or laws.

Too bad barbiturates effect large parts of the brain and how it exactly effects the central nervous system is not known yet.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/barbiturate.aspx
 
I guess I don't understand why they even need him to confess.
 
I'm an advocate of the use of Sodium Pentathol (Truth Serum) in certain circumstances. In this guys case, his "testimony" will possible help determine his mental condition at the time of the crime and may result in sparing his life. Not that I care about his life, but it's a way of getting at the truth.

I also advocate the use of "Truth Serum" when a kidnapper will not revel the location of a detained victim whose life may be endangered. I also support its use of the battlefield (I don't support water-boarding).

Like a lie detector device, the results can not be 100% certain and thus can not be used to convict. It can still be useful in other respects.
 
Pilot said:
I don't know about him walking free. Convincing a jury to let him go would be next to impossible. Regardless of the arguments and even the law, this case is so emotional and there is no doubt that he did in fact commit the crime. Finding a jury that would care if his rights were violated is unlikely.
Click to expand...

The point is being missed here - the commission of the crime is not at issue - the defense is set to enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, in effect, admitting the crime but not intent or mental capacity to know it was wrong.

I believe from my reading of the article that the court is allowing the defense to enter a "truth serum" test as evidence, as part of their plea but also allowing the prosecution to be part of the testing. It sounds to me that the defense has agreed to the deal which makes it acceptible legally. The only issue at trial, from what I've read, is whether or not he will be held in a mental institution for the rest of his life or if he will be subject to the death penalty upon conviction. He's never going free.
 
DDD said:
This is very exciting. I have no sympathy for the man who is proven beyond any doubt to be convicted of mass murder. They should issue the drug to him and fry him later!

Barbiturates are sedative drugs that effect the nervous system. It's influence is dosage dependent. If experts are to issue it they may spare Holmes from overdose and give him enough to be in a hypnotic state so as he will not be able to be conscious of what he says and thus be unable to control his speech. He would thus answer the questions truthfully and not hide behind amendements or laws.

Too bad barbiturates effect large parts of the brain and how it exactly effects the central nervous system is not known yet.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/barbiturate.aspx
Click to expand...

If the precedent is set, it would apply to all cases. As terrible as this crime was, he should have the right to a fair trial and to avoid self incrimination.
 
Helix said:
I guess I don't understand why they even need him to confess.
Click to expand...

They do not. It is for the mental evaluation of his competency. If he were not going with an insanity defense, it would not be an issue. Personally, I would have a huge problem as a juror believing anything they tried to use against him from the evaluation if they had him doped up. It could backfire on the prosecution if this goes forward.
 
DDD said:
This is very exciting. I have no sympathy for the man who is proven beyond any doubt to be convicted of mass murder. They should issue the drug to him and fry him later!

Barbiturates are sedative drugs that effect the nervous system. It's influence is dosage dependent. If experts are to issue it they may spare Holmes from overdose and give him enough to be in a hypnotic state so as he will not be able to be conscious of what he says and thus be unable to control his speech. He would thus answer the questions truthfully and not hide behind amendements or laws.

Too bad barbiturates effect large parts of the brain and how it exactly effects the central nervous system is not known yet.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/barbiturate.aspx
Click to expand...

5th Amendment to the United States Constitution said:
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.[1]
Click to expand...

Hi there.
 
Pilot said:
Are there situations where this should be allowed? Personally, I think it is unconstitutional and I don't like the precedent it sets.
Click to expand...

This is a blatant violation of the 5th amendment.
 
Pilot said:
Are there situations where this should be allowed? Personally, I think it is unconstitutional and I don't like the precedent it sets.
Click to expand...

Yeah it only violates the Fifth Amendment, not to mention the Fourteenth. Oh, it also sets epic precedence.

The right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself is a civil liberty. No this judge thinks he can just shoot a person up with dope and make him talk because he's a "judge" (and certainly a misguided one at that)...

I wonder if judges even think about the ramifications of their actions?

This case is going to end in a mistrial because this idiot judge thinks shooting people up with "truth juice" is constitutional just because he says so. If the jury hears a word of what Holmes says the case will have to be dropped against him and he will need to be retried.

This is a perfect example of how our authoritarian system works tho - they think they can just do whatever they want..
 
I do not approve of administering this "truth serum."

Hydroflouric acid, on the other hand......
 
Pilot said:
Are there situations where this should be allowed? Personally, I think it is unconstitutional and I don't like the precedent it sets.
Click to expand...

It is not the precedent that bugs me, it is the improper method of evidence gathering that might lead to his release. I understand they want to nail this guy with an execution or life in prison, but do it right. They have him pretty well on the crime, and there is no reason to screw it up with some sort of violation of his rights.
 
specklebang said:
I'm an advocate of the use of Sodium Pentathol (Truth Serum) in certain circumstances. In this guys case, his "testimony" will possible help determine his mental condition at the time of the crime and may result in sparing his life. Not that I care about his life, but it's a way of getting at the truth.

I also advocate the use of "Truth Serum" when a kidnapper will not revel the location of a detained victim whose life may be endangered. I also support its use of the battlefield (I don't support water-boarding).

Like a lie detector device, the results can not be 100% certain and thus can not be used to convict. It can still be useful in other respects.
Click to expand...

What's the point of having a Fifth Amendment then when it can just be violated at will?

I'm really getting fed up with people only using the Bill of Rights when it applies to their argument but then acting like the document doesn't exists when it suits their argument or opinion on an issue.

James Holmes is a horrible person without question but to take his civil liberties away would make all of us horrible people and tyrants...
 
tererun said:
As long as they make sure the only thing it endangers is his case for insanity then i am for it. however, if it allows him to walk free i think i would support the execution of the judge and a public burning of the defendant.
Click to expand...

The simple fact this judge pulled this stunt will allow Holmes to "walk free" (temporarily)...
 
There should be no not guilty by reason of insanity. A person either committed the crime or they did not. Guilty but insane would be a more appropriate.

Even the most insane person makes decisions. The insane may not understand our laws, but that does not excuse them.

As far as using the truth drug. Not sure it should be done. I can see the defense ready to appeal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom