Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Using Truth Serum To Confirm Insanity

Posted by Soulskill on from the i-swear-to-take-the-truth-pill,-the-whole-pill,-and-nothing-but-the-pill dept.

xclr8r writes "James Holmes representation did not enter a plea today in with regards to the Aurora, Co. Movie theater shooting so the Judge entered a plea of not guilty for James that could be changed at a later date by Holmes' attorney. The judge entered an advisory that if the plea was changed to Not Guilty by insanity that Holmes would be subject to a 'narcoanalytic interview' with the possibility of medically appropriate substances could be used e.g. so called truth serums. Holmes defense looks to have initially objected to this but as the previous article seems to infer that some compromises are being worked out. This certainly raises legal questions on how this is being played out 5th, 14th amendments. The legal expert in the second article states this is legal under Co. law but admits there's not a huge amount of cases regarding this. I was only able to find Harper v State where a defendant willingly underwent truth serum and wanted to submit the interview on his behalf but was rejected due to the judge not recognizing sufficient scientific basis to admit the evidence."

4 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. Questionable at best by sjames · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How can he be meaningfully represented by an attorney when he's too stoned out of his gourd on pentathal to be sure which disembodied voice is the lawyer and which is the interrogator?

    Are they willing to grant blanket immunity to anything else he might confess? Given that the doses of pentathal used make the person compliant, how do they distinguish an inconvenient truth he might tell from a fabrication he tells because it seems like what the interrogator wants to hear? There's a reason it's not actually used anymore. Perhaps the judge takes TV much too seriously!

    I'd claim it undermines my faith in the criminal justice system, but that ship sailed long ago.

    1. Re:Questionable at best by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      People who commit murder under the definition of legal insanity are dumb, violent animals; they have been absolved of their culpability for what they do, and thus of their humanity. I've worked at a psychiatric hospital and met them. "Dumb, violent animals" is a pretty accurate description. "Should never leave custody" is another one. They shouldn't be in jail, but they're not fit for society either.

  2. Re:Scientific basis by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know one of the very few Americans who has ever actually gotten a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict. Treating the florid paranoid schizophrenia that led him to kill his parents and one of his siblings is a very fine line: if it's undertreated, he becomes incredibly violent, but if it's overtreated, he becomes cognizant of what he did and rapidly becomes suicidal. He has to be left slightly insane in order to live.

    This is crap. It's ineffective at best and profoundly evil at worst.

  3. Re:Good luck for Holmes by artfulshrapnel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I guess my biggest complaint would be: How good is truth serum at verifying the type of insanity claimed, and what qualification does the judge have to diagnose the suspect's mental condition? The human brain and psychoactive drugs are a horribly complex nest of interconnected issues, and even trained professionals can't always predict the effect they'll have on abnormal brains or in abnormal combinations

    For example:
    Let's say he really is insane, but the truth serum they use temporarily stabilizes him by suppressing an overactive region in his brain. Now during the test he'll be perfectly sane and normal, but as soon as the drug wears off he goes back to crazytown.