2924 users online now!    CONTACT US | ADVERTISE | REGISTER       

About this Page -- This is a discussion on Hypothetical law question Page 2. within the forum Politics. they've talked about using a truth serum on the Aurora shooter to find out if he's really insane. Can't imagine ...

Go Back   VolNation > Off Topic Forums > Politics

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-05-2013, 09:10 AM   #16 (permalink)
VN conasewer
 
utvolpj's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A Start
Posts: 60,772
Likes: 16,131
they've talked about using a truth serum on the Aurora shooter to find out if he's really insane. Can't imagine Constitutionality is really a concern for many anymore

besides, anyone who has watched Maury knows there are lots of incorrect polygraph results
utvolpj is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 04-05-2013, 09:32 AM   #17 (permalink)
Resist much, obey little.
 
Georgia Peach's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sugar Mountain
Posts: 7,505
Likes: 890
Quote:
Originally Posted by utvolpj View Post
they've talked about using a truth serum on the Aurora shooter to find out if he's really insane. Can't imagine Constitutionality is really a concern for many anymore

besides, anyone who has watched Maury knows there are lots of incorrect polygraph results
Or, they could've just listened to his doctor.

Aurora Shooter's Doctor Warned Campus Police
Georgia Peach is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 04-05-2013, 09:36 AM   #18 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Professor Nono's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 631
Likes: 119
Ok - dude did it. But what about defenses? Like the necessity defense. There needs to be discretion in the criminal process.
Professor Nono is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 04-05-2013, 09:39 AM   #19 (permalink)
doo doo doo
 
volinbham's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: looking out my backdoor
Posts: 37,562
Likes: 4,113
I would imagine this borders on self incrimination.

I'll stick with someone having to prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt vs me having to prove my innocence beyond a reasonable doubt
__________________
Few things are as enduring as a temporary government program.
volinbham is offline  
VN Likes: 2
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 04-05-2013, 09:45 AM   #20 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
RichRollin's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,601
Likes: 2,363
My concern would be whether or not these machines/results could be manipulated. My guess is that they could be.
RichRollin is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 04-05-2013, 09:46 AM   #21 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
SamRebel35's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 9,504
Likes: 3,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by volinbham View Post
I would imagine this borders on self incrimination.

I'll stick with someone having to prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt vs me having to prove my innocence beyond a reasonable doubt
I don't disagree with that principle. Even then, I think this would, ironically, lead to far fewer cases of innocent people being found guilty.
SamRebel35 is online now  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 04-05-2013, 09:55 AM   #22 (permalink)
Senior Member

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 13,747
Likes: 5,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamRebel35 View Post
I don't disagree with that principle. Even then, I think this would, ironically, lead to far fewer cases of innocent people being found guilty.
I think it would lead to more.

The goal of a prosecutor is to get convictions, not to find the truth. Conviction rates equal re-election.
hog88 is online now  
VN Likes: 1
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 04-05-2013, 09:59 AM   #23 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
SamRebel35's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 9,504
Likes: 3,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by hog88 View Post
I think it would lead to more.

The goal of a prosecutor is to get convictions, not to find the truth. Conviction rates equal re-election.
Right, so if you remove a prosecutor from the equation and let the machine do the work (given the machine is 99.9% accurate), it seems that it would prove innocence even in cases where a prosecutor may have enough evidence to convince a jury of guilt.
SamRebel35 is online now  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 04-05-2013, 10:04 AM   #24 (permalink)
Senior Member

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 13,747
Likes: 5,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamRebel35 View Post
Right, so if you remove a prosecutor from the equation and let the machine do the work (given the machine is 99.9% accurate), it seems that it would prove innocence even in cases where a prosecutor may have enough evidence to convince a jury of guilt.
There would always be someone benefiting from the prosecution/conviction.
hog88 is online now  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 04-05-2013, 10:27 AM   #25 (permalink)
Rational Thought Allowed?
 
therealUT's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Brookside, KC
Posts: 27,455
Likes: 3,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamRebel35 View Post
I was listening to the Adam Carolla pod cast the other day, and he had an interesting idea about how criminal trials could be conducted in the future. His idea is based on the premise that, if brain scanning machines evolve so much that they can tell if a person is lying 99.6% of the time, then we could do away with a jury and judgement system. Simply use the suspect's scan evaluation as evidence of guilt or not. I think it is an interesting idea because it would almost certainly be a more accurate and efficient way of determining guilt or innocence, but it would come at the expense of possibly multiple infringements of rights. What issues would this method of judgement bring up in your mind?
So, Carolla wants to get rid of Fifth Amendment protections? Further, if we are going to posit such incredible brain scanning machines, what happens if we also posit brain control devices (or, technology that counters these scanners)?

I would assume that with nano-technology, one could have such devices without being detected.
__________________
"It is vain to object that life and reality are not logical. Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both." - LvM
therealUT is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 04-05-2013, 11:28 AM   #26 (permalink)
These Colors Don't Run
 
Vol4LifeLCA's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 685
Likes: 200
Didn't the movie "Minority Report" pretty much cover all this?
Vol4LifeLCA is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 04-05-2013, 12:03 PM   #27 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
SamRebel35's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 9,504
Likes: 3,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vol4LifeLCA View Post
Didn't the movie "Minority Report" pretty much cover all this?
Not really. Those were crimes that had not been committed.
SamRebel35 is online now  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 04-05-2013, 12:04 PM   #28 (permalink)
VN conasewer
 
utvolpj's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A Start
Posts: 60,772
Likes: 16,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamRebel35 View Post
Not really. Those were crimes that had not been committed.
and so is this idea. For example, someone who has killed a person is not always guilty of a crime
utvolpj is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 04-05-2013, 12:12 PM   #29 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
SamRebel35's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 9,504
Likes: 3,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by therealUT View Post
So, Carolla wants to get rid of Fifth Amendment protections? Further, if we are going to posit such incredible brain scanning machines, what happens if we also posit brain control devices (or, technology that counters these scanners)?

I would assume that with nano-technology, one could have such devices without being detected.
I think Carolla was saying it off the cuff with no real thought to the effects it would have to the constitution.

And as for your positing the brain control device, then that would totally negate the technology and we would be right back where we started.

What if the positing was limited to only the incredible brain scan machine? Agreed that it would be self incriminating, but could the added efficiency and accuracy in determining cases make the sacrifice in rights worth it? Not saying it would be worth it, just asking if it would warrant any discussion.
SamRebel35 is online now  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 04-05-2013, 12:12 PM   #30 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
SamRebel35's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 9,504
Likes: 3,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by utvolpj View Post
and so is this idea. For example, someone who has killed a person is not always guilty of a crime
True.
SamRebel35 is online now  
Reply With Quote TOP
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27