Some of my Libertarian friends and I were talking the other night, and conversation turned to the 5th amendment. The question was, suppose somebody developed a harmless drug whose only effect was to make it IMPOSSIBLE to tell a lie for several hours. Anybody taking the drug would be COMPELLED to answer any question put to them honestly. If such a drug were available would you support amending the 5th amendment to allow the courts to compel testimony against yourself? Suppose a judge were assigned to each witness in order to make sure the questioning was done within the framework of the rest of the Constitution. What do you think, good idea or bad? Please don't answer with, "That's technically impossible" or other critiques of the plausibility of the scenario. Use your imagination or else don't bother responding. Thanks, and I look forward to seeing what people have to say.
2007-11-27 05:28:27 · 13 answers · asked by Bigsky_52 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No, I don't support it at all.
The "If you didn't do it you have nothing to hide" argument is the same argument put forward by opponents of the 4th amendment - "If you don't have anything illegal you don't care if they search you"
The fact is that EVERY erosion of our civil liberties is always the thin end of the wedge.
"We'll only use it for serious crimes" or "We'll only ask questions about the single crime we're investigating" would VERY soon become "Well, you know, lots of people are killed by speeding, so it really IS a serious crime", or "Tax fraud affects the whole country so we really should make everyone take the drug and then ask them if they cheat on their taxes.
Richard
2007-11-27 05:34:34 · answer #1 · answered by rickinnocal 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
This is in no way an easy question. Many people take advantage of the Fifth Amendment, and are able to walk away from their crimes, on the other hand, others have found shelter from being tainted in a trial by irrelevant facts about themselves.
If this drug were every produced and used in courts, it would be a violation of privacy. Moreover it would eventually be abused, even if it started with the best of intentions.
2007-11-27 05:42:32 · answer #2 · answered by Fae Noisiv 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I would not support such a thing. Because to me, being forced to incriminate oneself goes against free will. The use of such a drug seems very draconian to me.
But the CIA did try such things with LSD back in the day.
2007-11-27 05:32:21 · answer #3 · answered by sahel578 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There are cases already like that.
Imagine a guy in prison for a crime, but deemed mentally incompetent to stand trail. there are psychotropic drugs that will help him gather his senses, but if he took it, then he would be competent to stand trial.
Alternatively he stays in jail forever if he does not become healthy.
Defense attorney advises against taking the drug, arguing that to be forced to do so would violate 5th amendment rights, by forcing him to make a decision regarding his health that would make a trial go forward, against his best interests.
Not sure of the citation, but I know I have read of at least one such case.
2007-11-27 05:57:57 · answer #4 · answered by Barry C 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I do not support changing any amendment just because it becomes technically possible to do so. Just because science could dream up a drug that would force a truthful verbal response, it would not change the fact that our Constitution provides us the protection from self incrimination. "Not admissible in a court of law." (And never should be)
2007-11-27 05:36:36 · answer #5 · answered by claudiacake 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No, because a human being's sense of law and fairness shouldn't be the only gatekeeper to the privacy and secrets of a person's soul. It would be a staggering and gross affront to human dignity.
Absolutely not.
Most people who follow current events can think of a judge whom they hold in low esteem. Would you want that person deciding, as a matter of LAW, what intrusions into your psyche were acceptable?
2007-11-27 05:32:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Why should a drug influence your right against self incrimination? Bush has already illegally repealed (by ignoring) too many amendments as it is.
2007-11-27 05:36:00 · answer #7 · answered by lcmcpa 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
This already exists...but it isn't chemical in nature. When a prosecutor gives a witness immunity from prosecution, he is required to testify, and cannot hide behind the 5th amendment.
Absent the immunity, there is no way to compel, even chemically, a person to testify against himself.
2007-11-27 05:33:49 · answer #8 · answered by scottclear 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Amazing what comes up when the bong is being passed around.
2007-11-27 05:34:00 · answer #9 · answered by booman17 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
What about self-incrimination?
2007-11-27 05:31:39 · answer #10 · answered by hiddengem 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋