Using Truth Serum To Confirm Insanity 308
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."
Questionable at best (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.
Re:who else is insane? (Score:2, Interesting)
I think each individual involved in the decision to pick wars with strangers the other end of the world has his own justifications (rationalizations), but the fundamental rational is major financial gain for those involved in the defense industry. For the average American (let alone the poor inhabitants of the countries chosen as battlefields) spending of about $700,000,000,000 a year (an average of about $7,000 for each payer of federal taxes) to build the capability to blow people up at will makes no sense. However, for a small minority, wars are an amazing opportunity to profit.
Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Scientific basis (Score:5, Interesting)
This is crap. It's ineffective at best and profoundly evil at worst.
Re:Questionable at best (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:He obviously has to be insane (Score:4, Interesting)
> He obviously has to be insane
Legal insanity is a very narrowly defined state. There are all kinds of things the lay person would consider insane that don't automatically qualify as legal insanity.
I think that is the root of the problem with this case - definition of legal insanity is so technical that enough people in the legal profession in colorado have assumed that it is mechanical -- press a 'button' in his brain and get an aswer, same way every time.
If any actual psychiatric doctors have signed off for this plan, I would expect them to be far from mainstream in their field.
Re:Good luck for Holmes (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.
Re:He obviously has to be insane (Score:5, Interesting)
Heinlein makes an interesting point, though I don't like the suicide aspect. The reason we have plea-by-insanity is it's "inhumane" to punish people for being crazy.
Here's my thing: It's eugenics. It's all eugenics. Criminals? We jail criminals to keep them out of society, not to rehabilitate them. Hopefully they die in there without breeding. Murderers, we execute--remove from society, remove their social influence and hopefully they don't breed either. The insane? Why would we not execute an insane murderer? Do you want to treat him so he can be "normal" and make more genetically brain damaged little children who can murder more normal, sane people and then get treatment too, until they've slowly eroded our society and replaced it with a bunch of insane people?!
Justifiable homicides: Self defense, defense of others, severe coercion (someone is going to murder you/your family--yeah, sucks, we have all kinds of funny ideals about how you should go to the police, but what then? Your 10 year old daughter gets murdered by having her vagina pulled inside out slowly with fishhooks, while you're duct taped to a chair to watch... no, people fall to psychological pressure; go find the real criminal).
Unjustifiable homicides: Vengeance, thrill, insurance money (greed), etc.
I don't care if you're nuts. If you are prone to kill people, we need to get rid of you.