Ethics and abuse of a 'truth serum'

[Lagmonster]

Let's leave aside - for a moment - the fact that traditional 'truth serums', such as the old ethanol, scopolamine, and sodium pentothal, aren't really 'truth serums'. I'm interested in the idea of the thing and the moral implications, especially considering that forcibly administering drugs may be considered a form of torture.

So let's say you had a drug that you could forcibly inject into a captive, that would somehow (magically, if you are a neurologist) cause your captive to answer any of your questions with the truth as they believe it to be (in other words, if they would normally believe that the truthful answer to the question "where is the bomb" is that it is at 5th and Main, that's what they'll say). Presuming that the drug has few to no permanent side effects (ie. has a statistically low chance of killing or permanently crippling anyone), when would the use of said chemical be morally acceptable for a police or military interrogator to forcibly use it on people?

I'm especially interested in whether or not people who don't support the idea of its use can come up with plausible examples of its abuse (presuming, again, that the drug somehow gets around the problems associated with memory recall).

[Gunhead]

One immediate concern is who is asking and what. If the subject tells the truth or what he believes is the truth, it's easy to distort what the subject said by asking the right type of questions to either imply that he did or didn't do something and this can be caused by malice or simple negligence on the part of the party doing the questioning. It would be most useful in any situation where you are trying to get a clear answer to specific question or a series of questions. I wouldn't really oppose it for intelligence use, but in any type of criminal trial it would be paramount to record who asked, what was asked and the answer.

-Gunhead

[Broomstick]

From a legalistic perspective, it runs afoul of the US right against self-incrimination.

[SCRawl]

I could see this being compelled by a judge, with the caveat that unless the person of interest consented (i.e. waived his fourth and fifth amendment rights) the results of interrogation under the influence of the "magic" serum would be inadmissible against him. Against any other person, though, that information would be perfectly valid, and of course this permits use in the "ticking time bomb" scenario.

[Lagmonster]

From a legalistic perspective, it runs afoul of the US right against self-incrimination.

How do they handle situations such as people confessing under the influence of drugs or alcohol?

[Mr Bean]

From a legalistic perspective, it runs afoul of the US right against self-incrimination.

How do they handle situations such as people confessing under the influence of drugs or alcohol?

They get away with it unless they have a decent lawyer who has the confession tossed out on one of a dozen possible legal grounds. Most people don't have decent lawyers and while there are great public defenders out there they have the issue of trying to defend twenty cases at once.

[Lagmonster]

I was thinking more about the self-incrimination thing, and I'm wondering about the idea some more; if you administered this serum to a suspect and asked him where he buried a body, or where he stashed the murder weapon, or similar question that would turn up physical evidence linking him to the crime, would he be protected because of the manner in which the information was collected? Or am I misunderstanding the interpretation of said right?

[Simon_Jester]

I was thinking more about the self-incrimination thing, and I'm wondering about the idea some more; if you administered this serum to a suspect and asked him where he buried a body, or where he stashed the murder weapon, or similar question that would turn up physical evidence linking him to the crime, would he be protected because of the manner in which the information was collected? Or am I misunderstanding the interpretation of said right?

Yes, because he has a right not to answer the question if you ask him point-blank.

The reason for this, by the way, is not simply to protect criminals. It's because back before this right was established, police had the nasty habit of doing the following:

-Ask suspect if he committed the crime.
-If he says yes, charge him with the crime.
-If he says no, charge him with the crime and charge him for perjury for lying.

That's a great way to intimidate people into confessing to crimes they didn't commit. To protect people from that, you need to establish an ironclad right not to confess to a crime- so that no one can threaten you with "if you say you didn't do it, and you're lying, you get in extra trouble!" and force you to calculate that it's better to spend two years in jail for a crime you didn't commit than ten years in jail for 'perjury' about a crime you didn't commit.

[TheFeniX]

So let's say you had a drug that you could forcibly inject into a captive, that would somehow (magically, if you are a neurologist) cause your captive to answer any of your questions with the truth as they believe it to be (in other words, if they would normally believe that the truthful answer to the question "where is the bomb" is that it is at 5th and Main, that's what they'll say).

The bolded emphasizes a big issue with this. There are many documented cases of officers feeding suspects information about a crime or crime scene only they (or the perpetrator) would know, they literally convince the suspect over many hours of interrogation that he did in fact do it, or that it was remotely possible for him to have committed it. The problem is that people have shitty memory. We constantly use past experience or details given to us by other people to reconstruct memories or to create them whole-cloth. Those fake memories become real to us and we do this shit all the time without someone interrogating them for hours on end.

I don't think investigators should be allowed alone in a room with anyone, much less being able to force people to talk about anything. There's too much room for abuse. Many people don't know their rights and considering how convoluted the system is, there's way to much abuse as it is, we don't need more.

I was thinking more about the self-incrimination thing, and I'm wondering about the idea some more; if you administered this serum to a suspect and asked him where he buried a body, or where he stashed the murder weapon, or similar question that would turn up physical evidence linking him to the crime, would he be protected because of the manner in which the information was collected? Or am I misunderstanding the interpretation of said right?

You can't coerce information out of someone, even someone who is guilty, and use that to later convict them. But even that isn't true:

"Tell me where the body is or I'll jam a pen in your eye" will have the confession thrown out.
"Tell me where the body is and we'll let you go free" is legitimate.

Basically, they can usually get away with anything besides physically laying hands on you.....most of the time. But keeping you locked in a room for 16 hours until you finally crack is ok.

[Gunhead]

Which legal system are talking about here anyway? I was under the impression it's totally ok to lie to the police in the U.S if you're the one who's being accused of a crime. As far as I understand it, that's the way it works in Finland. You are allowed to lie if you're the one who's being accused but if you're questioned as a witness, you're not allowed and if you're caught on a lie you can be charged with it. Of course then the police have to prove you lied intentionally. Another question is would this miracle drug force people to talk? One of the fundamental rights of a suspect is not to say anything which might incriminate him and has the right to say nothing at all.

-Gunhead

[Broomstick]

Which legal system are talking about here anyway? I was under the impression it's totally ok to lie to the police in the U.S if you're the one who's being accused of a crime.

Well, technically it's not illegal to lie to the police (unless you're making a false report of an occurrence) but it IS illegal to lie under oath, in court. That is perjury. You have the right to remain silent, that is, the right to not answer.

Another question is would this miracle drug force people to talk? One of the fundamental rights of a suspect is not to say anything which might incriminate him and has the right to say nothing at all.

That's the essence of the US Fifth Amendment - you have the right to say nothing at all. In addition, your silence is not supposed to be held against you although, as you can imagine, there is a gap between theory and practice on that one.

Confessions while under the influence of either drugs or alcohol might be valid - it depends on the circumstances. After all, one beer neither deprives you of all reason nor prevents you from shutting the hell up. A confession obtained while you were puking/falling down/passing out drunk, however, may not be admissible due to impairment. Ditto for drugs.

So, in this case - if the magic truth serum FORCES you to answer then it might well be unconstitutional in the US, but if you retain the ability to remain silent it might not since you would still be able to refrain from self-incrimination.

[B5B7]

People are thinking too small here. If such a drug existed, that not only was fully effective but actually caused the person to talk, then it could be used ON interrogators - the question being asked, "Given the power to administer this drug, would you do so in an ethical manner?" [Terms would be fully explained before asking this question]. The other group it could be used on is politicians, and suspected corrupt police. Indeed, to prevent infiltration of police and other agencies, one could question all people who join using this drug. There are already ethics tests for CIA, FBI, etc.

Catching and convicting criminals would be a secondary use.
If one thinks that politicians would pass laws to prevent its use on them; this will not prevent some citizen covertly getting a politician to ingest the drug (or do an injection on them), and question them.
Such a drug is revolutionary in its effect, and would change society in major ways.
Of course, it depends on how easy the drug is to make, and how secret its formula [not very secret or rare if its widespread enough to use on common criminals].

If easy to obtain, everyone would be using it on everyone else. This means the criminals themselves will be using it to detect undercover cops and informers, and to do their own loyalty tests. They could also use it on senior level bank employees to obtain data about bank's security system and safe combinations.
Corporations can use it for industrial espionage, etc.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I was thinking more about the self-incrimination thing, and I'm wondering about the idea some more; if you administered this serum to a suspect and asked him where he buried a body, or where he stashed the murder weapon, or similar question that would turn up physical evidence linking him to the crime, would he be protected because of the manner in which the information was collected? Or am I misunderstanding the interpretation of said right?

Fruit of the poisonous tree. By making him speak, and by forcing medication, you are violating the person's civil rights. In the US at least, any evidence found as a result of that violation is tainted, and inadmissible. The only way to get that physical evidence back in is if through completely independent investigative means, you have enough information to find the evidence anyway. However, none of the evidence gathered as a result of the rights violation may be used as a part of that. So no working backwards.

And before anyone bitches about this rule, it is the only way to prevent civil rights violations from happening. Why, you might ask, can there simply not be penalties for the police? Conflict of interest. You know how there is a Blue Wall with things like police brutality, and DAs will decline prosecution in those cases as well? Yeah. That is why.

. Against any other person, though, that information would be perfectly valid, and of course this permits use in the "ticking time bomb" scenario.

The legal standing thing is... dicey.

I don't think investigators should be allowed alone in a room with anyone, much less being able to force people to talk about anything. There's too much room for abuse. Many people don't know their rights and considering how convoluted the system is, there's way to much abuse as it is, we don't need more.

Agreed. The police can get an innocent person to confess some 30% of the time if left to their own devices for long enough.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Actually, the implications of this discovery would be appalling. The drug would have to be extremely tightly controlled, since the advantages for nefarious use would be incredible. Businesses could surreptitiously use it on clients and competitors for inside trading advantage. Criminals could use it on victims to find out the true extent of their assets, and their location, access keys, etc. Even if the drug did not compel one to speak, carefully worded questions accompanied by credible threats to kill the victim's cat/spouse/children if no answer were forthcoming would basically guarantee the truth to out. Questionable entities with government contacts would be able to force out access information and blackmailable secrets on ever expanding levels of government to obtain massive leverage.

If the drug were readily manufactured, in such a scenario people might opt for a carefully monitored regime of universal application, similar to the adoption of betrization in Stanislaw Lem's Return to Earth, or to the emotion suppressing serum in Equilibrium, where everyone was monitored for serum levels so that there would be no deception allowed. What if an antidote were developed? Whoever had access to it would be in the same position as the main character in The Invention of Lying. The mere existence of such a drug would be a regulatory nightmare and a huge threat to civilization.

[someone_else]

I really think a drug that makes cops completely honest not malicious and law-abiding would need to be shipped with the truth serum pack.

Otherwise it won't be a positive change.

Also don't forget that anything with those capabilities will have a BIG HONKING HUGE market for the criminal underworld (and for secret services for that matter). Which means the security measures to protect vials and production plants of such serum will have to rival the measures to protect anything else on Earth combined.

If you fail to protect the vials or the formula, you open the biggest can of worms after the discovery of fire.

The best thing to do if someone discovers this thing is blow away everything that has to do with it and kill anyone that may know something about it. Not kidding. That's far a worse scenario than an all-out nuclear war.

[Gunhead]

All the control and other issues aside, I think the drug would work far better to exonerate people from suspicion and you could use it at as a lie detector test+. There's still the issue of who is asking and what, but at least you can now obtain consent from the person the drug is being used on and all information could be considered to have been given voluntarily.
As others have said, the potential for misuse is enormous, not that it wouldn't get used if someone was to invent such a drug.

-Gunhead

[Purple]

Hm, on that note here is an idea. How about having the person be given the exact questions he is going to be asked in advance, time to read them and only than asked if he or she consents to the drug. And afterward, only answers to those questions are to be considered admissible at court. (All videotaped of course) That way you eliminate anyone but those that are innocent and want to prove them self such all the while making sure there is no manipulation.

[Lagmonster]

Actually, the implications of this discovery would be appalling. The drug would have to be extremely tightly controlled, since the advantages for nefarious use would be incredible. Businesses could surreptitiously use it on clients and competitors for inside trading advantage. Criminals could use it on victims to find out the true extent of their assets, and their location, access keys, etc. Even if the drug did not compel one to speak, carefully worded questions accompanied by credible threats to kill the victim's cat/spouse/children if no answer were forthcoming would basically guarantee the truth to out. Questionable entities with government contacts would be able to force out access information and blackmailable secrets on ever expanding levels of government to obtain massive leverage.

Con artists, cult leaders, politicians, corporations, etc. already have their own reasonably effective ways of obtaining trust and information. Blackmail, honeypots, booze-n-schmooze, bribes, threats, espionage...while a truth drug might present an easier direct route presuming you can administer it effectively (a rise in blow-gun sales?), I would bet people lose more to simple cons and scams. I'm not sure it'd be a short route to the "end of civilization" level.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

The difference is that this method is guaranteed to be perfectly effective, and doesn't leave debilitating effects on the person questioned. It's cheaper, safer, and easier than the coercion techniques often used. One could simply schmooze the victim, ply them with a few drinks, surreptitiously administer the drug (I suppose whether or not it must be directly injected might limit its applicability), ask the questions innocently enough, and continue with the alcohol until the memory fades. Determined use would get a group further, faster than other methods currently available. One positive outcome, though, might be a reduction in the use of "enhanced interrogation" since with a truth serum there's no real leg for the military to stand on for using torture to gain information. I realize that gaining information isn't the real point of torture, but it's the official justification, and if removed, conditions might improve in military detention centers.

[Civil War Man]

From a legalistic perspective, it runs afoul of the US right against self-incrimination.

How do they handle situations such as people confessing under the influence of drugs or alcohol?

From a layman's perspective, the main difference I see between someone confessing under the influence of alcohol versus confessing under the influence of the hypothetical truth serum is the interrogators in your scenario are forcing the suspect to take the truth serum.

The only thing I see really impeding Alerik's scenario of slipping it into someone's drink for the purposes of something like cons or espionage is if it had a distinct color, odor, and/or taste that is difficult to conceal. Since the hypothetical involves the drug having a really low chance of doing any permanent damage, there really isn't any reason why it would have to be injected. Some of it will get into the bloodstream through ingestion (it would just take longer), and the low risk of permanent damage means that it wouldn't be a major risk to just use larger doses to ensure its effectiveness. So Alerik's scenario of it being used by criminals or corrupt government/business leaders can't really be dismissed as an example of abusing the drug.

[Simon_Jester]

Hm, on that note here is an idea. How about having the person be given the exact questions he is going to be asked in advance, time to read them and only than asked if he or she consents to the drug. And afterward, only answers to those questions are to be considered admissible at court. (All videotaped of course) That way you eliminate anyone but those that are innocent and want to prove them self such all the while making sure there is no manipulation.

It is going to be so hard to avoid police and prosecutors using this as evidence of guilt, informally.

[ChaserGrey]

David Feintuch handwaved this kind of technology into being for his Fisherman series, although there it was a combination of drugs and highly advanced polygraphs. The major problem he pointed out- which I hadn't thought of until he did so- was that it created the opportunity for police to go fishing in a person's mind. They could find an excuse to charge him with something, hook him up to the Truth Machine, and then ask about anything in his history until they found a crime. (The treatment also put the subject in a hypnotized state such that they couldn't really refuse to answer a question.)

In the books there was a legal safeguard that in order to get the "P and D" a person had to have been accused of a specific crime, had to have denied the charge, and only questions relating to that specific charge were legally admissible...but those rules were sometimes ignored. In one notable instance, after a nasty shuttle accident aboard a starship, the Captain P&D'd everyone in the crew until he got to the bottom of it, and got away with it.

All in all I believe I'll skip such technology, thank you.

Con artists, cult leaders, politicians, corporations, etc. already have their own reasonably effective ways of obtaining trust and information. Blackmail, honeypots, booze-n-schmooze, bribes, threats, espionage...while a truth drug might present an easier direct route presuming you can administer it effectively (a rise in blow-gun sales?), I would bet people lose more to simple cons and scams. I'm not sure it'd be a short route to the "end of civilization" level.

This is all true, but right now all those methods of compulsion require a good bit of time, effort, and planning. If getting another person to tell the truth really became as simple as slipping them a mickey and waiting sixty seconds, I think things would get Very Bad very quickly.