Why aren't criminals hypnotised or given a "truth drug" to get them to reveal the locations of victims bodies?

Question

I realise this is not guaranteed but say, if one of my loved ones was murdered I'd want anything to be tried to try to locate their remains. I think this approach could be used in the Moors murders or the Peter Falconio case in Australia, for example. Unorthodox methods have been used in police work before, like employing psychics.

Answer 1

Here in the US, you have to have a court order signed by a judge, and because it is considered a dangerous and invasive procedure to give a truth drug to anyone, it is almost never granted.

Answer 2

there's at least 2 issues here. One is how reliable is the "truth serum". Like does it always work? Probably a certain percentage of the population does not respond so in those cases, the dose will be increased until you reach a lethal dose amount and they die. Then maybe the answer they gave you may be wrong or misleading.
The other issue is that once the 'truth serum' is administered, you can ask other questions for other information like maybe get tips for insider trading or personal information on someone else. You may not be able to control what questions are asked.

Answer 3

Great idea in theory but as you say it's not guaranteed and if somebody has mental illness or are psychotic or have blacked out during a crime then they would not remember and hence could be let off as being innocent when they are clearly guilty. Plus the fact criminals keep the fat cat lawyers and the police in work. In fact they need criminals to be employed.

Answer 4

I tend to be pragmatic about many issues, and I tend to believe very much in physiological and neurological psychology.
The way you asked the question, I was with you.
I don't even care if the drug hurts the prisoner, if the prisoner confessed under no duress (yeah, OK), or if the DNA evidence is strong enough...
But when I read otehr answers, I got the idea that the drugs may be pretty haphazard.
I don't care for prisoners' rights so much in this case, so long as long-term brain damage, organ damage, or death will not ensue.
But to hurt people with no valid result basis?
Well, I hate to have been wrong.

Answer 5

Interesting! I know they use lie detectors in some parts of the US, and most psychologists believe they are useless, so why not try something less conventional? That said, 'truth drugs' don't work, apparently, and as for hypnosis, only certain types of people can be hypnotised, so it's a crapshoot.

Answer 6

Simple. Hypnotisim (sp?) isn't a proven method of getting real information. This means that it has not been scientifically proven to actually work; therefore the court of law will not allow this type of method.

It's kind of like with lie detector tests. Not all States recognize it as a "true test". In fact lie detector test results are inadmissible in the court of law.

Answer 7

Good idea but there are too many do gooders in this world who harp on about human rights and don't live in the real world with us. The minute someone commits a crime and can't live like a civilised being then they don't deserve to live like one.

Answer 8

1) Hypnosis doesn't work like that.
2) "truth drugs" as they are called are actually quite cruel, they hurt the person they are administered to. Plus they are dangerous.

Answer 9

Why not use a ball/peen hammer and start breaking finger bones and toe bones until they cough up info? Or waterboard them? Or peeling pieces of skin off with a butter knife? Could it be because it's just wrong to do such things?

Answer 10

Using your reasoning, we should give truth drugs to everyone any time someone has been murdered.