Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Using Truth Serum To Confirm Insanity

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the i-swear-to-take-the-truth-pill,-the-whole-pill,-and-nothing-but-the-pill dept.

Crime 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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good luck for Holmes (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157373)

If he's willing to submit to drug-enhanced interrogation, he's certified crazy!

Re:Good luck for Holmes (5, Funny)

Alranor (472986) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157567)

There's somebody called Yossarian on the phone, I think he wants to talk to you ...

Re:Good luck for Holmes (0, Troll)

Barsteward (969998) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157833)

I'd just ask a few questions (a "yes" to any proves insanity):

1. Do you believe there is a god?
2. Do you approve of or a member the N.R.A.?
3. Do you believe the earth is only 6000-10000 years old?
4. Would you vote for Sarah Palin as president? (yes for her performing in a porno is fine)

Re:Good luck for Holmes (0, Flamebait)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157907)

1, 3, and 4 definitely show a person, at least isn't paying much attention. However, being lied to by the people who raised you and misinformed doesn't really make one insane.

Talking about the NRA as if its some nutjob group though? Well that doesn't show insanity either, but it does show one to be almost as misinformed as the people in categories 1, 3, and 4. The NRA is just a lobby group....and one which represents a huge cross section of society.

Re:Good luck for Holmes (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158095)

1) This isn't "not paying attention", there is no absolute proof that God does or does not exist, so believing one way or another is fine
2) Yeah, this is certifiably crazy. The N.R.A. goes overboard and uses overboard scare tactics with it's members. If you aren't crazy when you join, you will be fairly quickly. A recent amusing conversation:
Friend: Damnit, why do they keep trying to restrict what guns we can own? As long as we are responsible, what is the problem?
[I try to argue a moderate position for a while... long story short, it ends with]
Me: You know, people in the N.R.A. want these guns too.
Friend: Oh, right. I see your point.
3) Yeah, ok, yean, that's not paying attention
4) Umm... bitch was/is a batshit crazy hypocrite. To what extent do you have to "not pay attention" to fail to notice that. Insane.

Re:Good luck for Holmes (2)

bsane (148894) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158123)

2) because 'the other side' doesn't use overboard scare tactics?

Re:Good luck for Holmes (2)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158141)

*Shrug*

Probably, because if he were sane, he would be likely to fail, and it'd be useless.

I don't see how saying "take the test or that plea won't be acceptable" violates the 5th or 14th though. The right to not incriminate yourself, or the right to liberty (except when denied by due process) is not violated by such an option. The mispercieved "right to be believed in what you say" and possible "get away with it" are violated, but we aren't given those rights. All this is, is an attempt by the court, to establish a strong verification of the truth. The person isn't required to take the test.

Precedent... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157385)

Neddy: "You're mad, mad I tell you!"
Bluebottle: "Little does he know that I'm as sane as the next man."
Eccles: "Little does HE know that I'm the next man!"

Re:Precedent... (2)

drkim (1559875) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157431)

So nice to see a Goon Show quote on /.

Carry on...!

Grammazi (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157389)

"This certainly raises legal questions on how this is being played out 5th, 14th amendments."

How about a little less of the colloquial and a little more grammar?

Re:Grammazi (1)

coastwalker (307620) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157823)

Never mind the law, lets just stiff the guy, he's guilty as hell.

Re:Grammazi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157875)

That's not the only one in the summary:

"with the possibility of medically appropriate substances could be used"

Re:Grammazi (2)

clarkn0va (807617) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158109)

The whole summary appears to have been authored by Bing Translate.

Re:Grammazi (1)

mikewilsonuk (1676196) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157997)

"This certainly raises legal questions on how this is being played out 5th, 14th amendments."

How about a little less of the colloquial and a little more grammar?

The author could look "infer" up in the dictionary while he's at it.

Re: Grammazi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158025)

"Drop the vernacular!"

Re:Grammazi (2)

ajparr (1366929) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158069)

a little less of the colloquial and a little more grammar?

Isn't that an Elvis song??

Re:Grammazi (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158167)

OH NOES SOMEONE FUCKED UP THEIR GRAMMAR ON /.! Who cares? We all know what he meant and comments on OP's grammar are hardly germane to the topic.

who else is insane? (-1, Offtopic)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157393)

So while somebody like that (walks into a crowded theatre and shoots people) may be insane. How about somebody who sends a drone to drop bombs on civilians, kills civilians, including children. That's just normal, right? But one does what he does because he is probably crazy and the other one because he is crazy on power and wants to 'stimulate economy' by buying and dropping bombs.

Even if only one is insane, aren't both criminal?

Think of it this way: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157479)

Well, you lot voted for the latter, not the former. In a republic, no less.

Thus, the popular vote says it's fine to do the latter, not the former, and since that is what the government is founded upon, yes, it's fully justified. With your vote, even if you voted for the other guy. For see here now, it's not mob rule, y'see now?

Anyhow, you got to vote (even if it was a Diebold vote) so you got no grounds for complaining. The dead guys, they didn't get no vote. Clearly, they shouldn't've been born UnAmerican, so it's their own damn fault too.

Of course, since if you are American, if you disagree, your founding father-given recourse is to take up bear arms. So go out and shoot us some bears, or some pinko commie gays, since they's calling themselves bears too or some sort of malarky, it's the duty of a true patriot!

But seriously, these days, if you really want to do something about it, you need to vote with your wallet. Kickstarter is your friend; go out and buy yourself some representation.

Re:Think of it this way: (-1, Offtopic)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157673)

I think it is demonstrably false that "the people" elect these people. There is ample evidence of cheating and fraud in elections and the whole process even without tampering prevents the people from selecting the selection.

The people of the US *DO NOT* control who is in office. I really wish we could put that stale argument [troll?] to rest.

Re:Think of it this way: (2)

Sique (173459) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157851)

This is just an allegation, come up with some proof next time.

Re:Think of it this way: (1)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158177)

How about the fact that the two parties have worked together to create more and more hurdles for independent candidates and candidates from other parties to gain ballot access? What about the fact that no candidates other than Republicrats are allowed to participate in televised debates? How about the whole plurality voting system (as opposed to IRV or approval voting) which, probably more than anything, allows this power duopoly to persist?
A newly elected government took office in January. If this was by the choice of the people, why does the President have 50% approval rating and how can the approval rating of Congress be even lower?
The People get to participate in a symbolic ritual, but the whole system is rigged so that nothing really changes.

Re:Think of it this way: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157871)

Looking at the news, not a stale argument. And if it's a troll, it's a deserved one right up until the Citizens of the United States of America start doing their duty and make sure their constitution and their government align again. Other calls to arms have not improved the situation, quite to the contrary.

Oh, and stop bothering the rest of us for their religion ("democracy" with a heavy dose of christianity) that they themselves cannot be bothered to live up to. "Do as I say, not as I do" and all that. That's where most of the beard is in this story, yet all I hear from your direction is a massive whoosh.

Re:Think of it this way: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157995)

Election fraud is rampant, there is no doubt, but let's take the latest presedential election as an example; was fraud the overriding factor in Obama winning? Hardly.

The Republicans presented a weak candidate and campaigned poorly while the Democrats spent enormous amounts of money, had the media covering for them all the way along and in the end won with a not very large margin. Let's face it, voter fraud or not, we lost.

The question I have to ask is this; why do the Republicans continue to conduct themselves this way? Weak platform, never taking a strong stand on important issues, ostracizing those in the party who really stand for conservatism. The Democrats are well organized, vote almost as a block with near total compliance to party, use every tool they have... and they win.

It's almost like the Republicans are working to elect Democrats and enact Democrat policies. Sure they talk a good game, especially at election time, but they act and vote like they are pretending. I don't care what they say, I care what they do, and what they do is lose.

I am not one for conspiracy theories, but Occams razor applies, do you have a simpler explanation? The argument that they are stupid does not apply, these men have been in power for years and years (McCain, Boenher, McConnel you name it). They are clearly acting with intent.

They like the power their minority status gives them - while it may be "minority" they indeed are very powerful. They don't want to give it up.

It's not just fraud, it's actually worse.

Re:Think of it this way: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158023)

-1 Offtopic

+1 Insightful

Re:Think of it this way: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158033)

"The Democrats are well organized, vote almost as a block with near total compliance to party, use every tool they have... and they win."

OK, as a non-USian, I can see you've pre-selected what you're going to see.

Go to, for example, The Young Turks website and look through some of the last four-five years (all under Obama) progressive liberal discussion on Obama and how The Democrats (the party as opposed to the people) loathe and despise the progressives and try to browbeat them into voting as a block and not complaining. the ONLY reason why 90+% of those progressives didn't vote for a Republican (if they even bothered at all) was because the Republican party have responded to a dwindling voter base by becoming even MORE batshit insane, and hence unvotable.

The reason why Obama won with a small margin was because most of his support base (progressive liberals) did not bother to vote for him.

All you saw was that every voter for the Democrats voted "as a block" for the Democratic Party. But that's the definition of someone who voted. Even Republicans. 100% of those who voted for a Republican voted "as a block" for the Republican Party.

Re:who else is insane? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157513)

If somebody was ordering assassinations of children just for the lulz and for minor economic gain, then yes, they'd be insane. In what reality are you claiming this happened?

Or perhaps you are talking about our own reality, where the situation is not as simple as you claim.

Re:who else is insane? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157573)

Stop trying to justify the government's evil, warmonger.

Re:who else is insane? (1, Interesting)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157669)

If somebody was ordering assassinations of children just for the lulz and for minor economic gain , then yes, they'd be insane.

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:who else is insane? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158179)

You can certainly argue that military spending in the US is out of control, and that war for profit has happened so often that it's practically a hobby, but drone strikes are an example of it. The scale of operations is too small, mostly using hardware that would have been bought anyway.

Nobody's lobbying for drones to be used offensively, since all the manufacturers know damn well that they can sell their products anyway. A buildup of drone fleets is the fashion among all the world's militaries, and that wouldn't change even if the offensive models were going to do nothing but sit in their hangars "just in case".

Any profit made on selling missiles really is small change in this instance.

Re:who else is insane? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158225)

erk, typo. I meant to say "drone strikes are not an example of it"

Re:who else is insane? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157655)

Insanity is a legal definition, not a medical one. Insanity is a defense that states that the defendant was not capable of understanding the gravity of the crime due to an acute mental illness. It is rarely successful, since only acute psychosis or a cognitive disability (very low IQ) could really make someone, even with a severe mental illness, not understand that what they were doing was a crime. Schizophrenia would apply, but personality disorders, which is what it appears that Holmes suffers from, do not. Since Holmes carefully prepared the attack over months, it is obvious that he knew what he was doing and that it was malicious. Jared Loughner, in contrast, probably could have argued an insanity defense since it was obvious that he was having severe difficulties with psychosis (Loughner didn't use that defense and simply pled guilty).

Re:who else is insane? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157993)

Offtopic my ass. There are occasional psychos out there and then there are systematic ones. The government is a systematic psycho, when is the truth serum going to be used on the politicians that order murder?

Yet we still don't know what really happened (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157397)

He had roomates (news said he didn't), there was at least one other person there dressed in all black holding weapons (news never mentioned this but eye-witness testimonials revealed that this is the case), Holmes was perfectly normal and was a great student, well loved, and so forth. How does one switch so quickly? I'm going to throw this one out to the conspiracy theorists and see what they can conjure up.

This bullshit is modded informative? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157457)

Only on Slashdot...

Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened (3, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157507)

Many people found Hitler to be quite charming in person.

You can't seem to look into any infamous crazy serial killer without comments from shocked neighbors and friends who talk about how normal he seemed.

Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened (5, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157679)

You can't seem to look into any infamous crazy serial killer without comments from shocked neighbors and friends who talk about how normal he seemed.

I always wonder whether the culprit in some infamous deed was also shocked. Could it be that any of us "normal" types could find ourselves committing an outrage, even though we think we really are the nice quiet boy everyone thinks we are? Or do cold-blooded killers know they are such, and just keep it hidden for years?

Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157749)

Could be many have the potential, but few (but rising) actually experience the social stresses needed to "flip the switch".

ovo -hoot

Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened (4, Funny)

MatthewCCNA (1405885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157775)

"Eh, you never know what you're capable of. I never thought I could shoot down a German plane, but last year I proved myself wrong." - Abe J. Simpson

Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened (3, Interesting)

demonlapin (527802) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157705)

Hitler was charismatic, but nobody thought he was "normal". They just thought they could use him longer than he could use them.

Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened (3)

westlake (615356) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157859)

He had roomates (news said he didn't), there was at least one other person there dressed in all black holding weapons (news never mentioned this but eye-witness testimonials revealed that this is the case),

The eyewitness sees or thinks he has seen a second man armed and dressed "in black" in a darkened theater where every motion is in the shadows, colors are muted, all is confusion and his sight lines were restricted.

Initially, few in the audience considered the masked figure a threat. He appeared to be wearing a costume, like other audience members who had dressed up for the screening [of "The Dark Knight Rises."]

Some believed that the gunman was playing a prank, while others thought that he was part of a special effects installation set up for the film's premiere .

It is also alleged that the gunman threw two canisters emitting a gas or smoke, partially obscuring the audience members' vision, making their throats and skin itch, and causing eye irritation.

Witnesses said the multiplex's fire alarm system began sounding soon after the attack began and staff told people in theater 8 to evacuate One witness said that she was hesitant to leave because someone yelled that there was someone shooting in the lobby and that they shouldn't leave.

2012 Aurora shooting [wikipedia.org]

In Aurora, Holmes lived on Paris Street in a one-bedroom apartment, in a building with other students involved in health studies.

James Eagan Holmes [wikipedia.org]

Seventy wounded. Twelve fatally. Ten dead at the scene.

That implies ballistic evidence that would make it obvious almost immediately whether there was more than one gun man.

Re:Yet we still don't know what really happened (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158013)

That implies ballistic evidence that would make it obvious almost immediately whether there was more than one gun man.

He had a shotgun.

US judge goes insane (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157401)

News at 11.

So how's this exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157403)

If you willingly undergo such stuff and try to submit it on your behalf it's "unscientific" but if it may be used against you it's suddenly negotiably fine?

Yes, compromises abound. I'd say that indeed, the very system is entirely compromised to the point of no longer being a "justice" system any longer--assuming it ever was. QV the justice department's approach to prosecution: To suicide and beyond!

Scientific basis (5, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157465)

Sure it's a pretty well known fact that the more I depress your CNS the less you are going to be capable of rationalization and higher thought to answer a question "creatively". However such an undertaking is not reliable or scientific at all, because there is a point at which I can get you to agree with and pretty much answer anything I want you to. Sigh. Americans and their obsession with torture. After all this is just torture in another guise, instead of using pain to interrogate, I am shutting down part of your brain. Either way you are being forced to confess and give testimony against yourself. Whatever happened to I dunno, finding EVIDENCE?

Re:Scientific basis (1, Offtopic)

WinstonWolfIT (1550079) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157525)

Name the country you're from, and I promise you I can find credible evidence of State-sponsored torture. Careful where you point your fingers or you might leave with fewer than you planned.

Re:Scientific basis (2)

itsthebin (725864) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157559)

Careful where you point your fingers or you might leave with fewer than you planned.

it sounds like you intend to pull his fingers off .... gasp ... torturer

Re:Scientific basis (5, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157687)

Careful where you point your fingers or you might leave with fewer than you planned.

it sounds like you intend to pull his fingers off .... gasp ... torturer

Please, don't pull his finger.

Re:Scientific basis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157935)

Norway!

Re:Scientific basis (2)

Sique (173459) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158185)

This is exactly what the grand parent is talking about: Threatening or actually exercising violence to get the opponent adhere to your wishes.

At least some states still think that torture is so bad that they don't publicly admit to do it. But a state which runs around proudly proclaiming they use special interrogation technics while Friedrich Spee [wikipedia.org] 350 years ago already knew those technics provide no evidence but do nothing else than confirming the prejudices of the interrogator.

Re:Scientific basis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157549)

He is guilty plane and simple, the evidence is there. He is trying to get out of it by pleading insanity; It is possible (hard, but possible) to fake insanity. Should he get a 'get out of jail free' card?

Re:Scientific basis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157619)

He doesn't get to walk away free by pleading insanity. Insane asylums are a form of prison. Some would claim them worse, depending on if you're forcible drugged or not.

Re:Scientific basis (5, Interesting)

demonlapin (527802) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157743)

I know one of the very few Americans who has ever actually gotten a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict. Treating the florid paranoid schizophrenia that led him to kill his parents and one of his siblings is a very fine line: if it's undertreated, he becomes incredibly violent, but if it's overtreated, he becomes cognizant of what he did and rapidly becomes suicidal. He has to be left slightly insane in order to live.

This is crap. It's ineffective at best and profoundly evil at worst.

Re:Scientific basis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157963)

Does this person live in Maryland? If so, my wife knows the family too :( It was one parent though, not both. Two of them then :( :(
O

Re:Scientific basis (2)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157601)

Wait, truth serum is torture now? I mean putting panties on heads was a stretch, but now this? You sure you're just not an America-hater looking for any hook to hang a cutting remark?

Re:Scientific basis (2)

Sique (173459) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158215)

Truth serum has basicly the same ability to uncover evidence than torture: none. It will do nothing more than reinforce the prejudices of the applier.

evidence is there (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157639)

12 dead bodies. Plenty of witnesses. His home is full of weapons.
This fucker is guilty, but the defense is preempting very early to result in an insanity outcome. They're trying to shape the degree of guiltiness. It's extremely hard to get an insanity defense in the US, only because so many people have tried it.

The only testimony they want is to determine if he's genuinely insane or just pretending. Either way, he's going to be locked up in prison or in a mental institution and I bet he's hoping for the latter in order to continue his "Joker" character fantasy.

Re:evidence is there (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157689)

The only testimony they want is to determine if he's genuinely insane or just pretending.

Just ask him whether he loves his mother. Either answer proves he's insane.

Re:evidence is there (2)

RDW (41497) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157803)

The only testimony they want is to determine if he's genuinely insane or just pretending. Either way, he's going to be locked up in prison or in a mental institution and I bet he's hoping for the latter in order to continue his "Joker" character fantasy.

The article notes: 'In an advisory that Holmes would have to sign if he enters an insanity plea, Sylvester didn't specify what type of drugs would be used but said the examination could include "medically appropriate" ones.'

Reports that a new, experimental aerosolized drug will be administered by court-appointed psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Crane remained uncomfirmed at this time.

Re:evidence is there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157983)

"12 dead bodies. Plenty of witnesses. His home is full of weapons."

Only 2 out of 3 would be evidence of guilt.

A home full of weapons doesn't count.

Re:Scientific basis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157915)

Alternatively rather than suppress anything you could just give them some lsd
  and mdma and ask them some questions. They'll be happy to answer them. In fact try stopping them.

Re:Scientific basis (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157969)

Whatever happened to I dunno, finding EVIDENCE?

For what? I don't think someone doubts that Holmes went into the cinema shooting people.

Re:Scientific basis (1)

westlake (615356) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158077)

Either way you are being forced to confess and give testimony against yourself. Whatever happened to I dunno, finding EVIDENCE?

Insanity comes into play only when the guilt of a defendant is no longer in doubt and the only question remaining is whether he should be held responsible for his actions. The burden of proof is on the defense ---- and there is not a whole lot you can do that is likely to be persuasive.

Questionable at best (5, Interesting)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157489)

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:Questionable at best (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157543)

The lawyer and the "interrogator" will agree on questions prior to the "interrogation", and no deviation from that would be allowed. Anything offered by the subject voluntarily would not be submissable.

Re:Questionable at best (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157695)

The lawyer and the "interrogator" will agree on questions prior to the "interrogation", and no deviation from that would be allowed. Anything offered by the subject voluntarily would not be submissable.

If you stray off topic while under a "truth serum", is that "voluntarily offering" the information?

Re:Questionable at best (1)

jadv (1437949) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157751)

Yes it is.

Re:Questionable at best (1)

Cwix (1671282) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157905)

I'm not sure I see the voluntary part.

You voluntarily wanted the serum. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158151)

If he doesn't want his words used against him, he doesn't have to have the drugs. Or even say anything in his defence. But if he volunteered to say something, he can't call "backsies" because he didn't volunteer it thinking it would be incriminating.

Re:Questionable at best (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157585)

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?

By asking him questions only the perpetrator would know the answer to.

No need to thank me, I'm more than happy to put in the 2 seconds of thought that required, if it means saving you the hours of brain straining you clearly put into that post.

Re:Questionable at best (1)

eyenot (102141) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157843)

I believe AC's point was that an interrogator can also lead the questioning. This is actually endemic in the U.S. justice system.

Re:Questionable at best (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157637)

Once you declare "insanity" you are safe from prosecution.... BUT you're a permant ward of the State until they feel you are safe to release. As a "ward" you are treated like a child in that you cannot legally "lie" because you are handicap..., but that doesn't mean the court cannot order therapy to attempt to see through the psychosis.

I think this is a slightly veiled threat that if he chooses the "insanity" defense he is going to be treated like a dumb, violent animal... Forever. After the judge starts the process, you can't undo your declaration, ever.

Re:Questionable at best (5, Interesting)

demonlapin (527802) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157761)

People who commit murder under the definition of legal insanity are dumb, violent animals; they have been absolved of their culpability for what they do, and thus of their humanity. I've worked at a psychiatric hospital and met them. "Dumb, violent animals" is a pretty accurate description. "Should never leave custody" is another one. They shouldn't be in jail, but they're not fit for society either.

Re:Questionable at best (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157881)

Honestly, this sounds better than my current job.

Where do I sign up to be a dumb, violent animal? I don't think I'd want to hurt anyone to be awarded entrance, though.

Re:Questionable at best (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157877)

This whole thing is idiotic. Nobody is disputing the facts of the actual events, correct? A guy walked into a movie theater and started shooting wildly into the crowd. Is he insane? Of course he fucking is; that's not the action of a sane person. Why are we having this bizarre argument where the lawyers for both sides start using the word "insane" to mean something completely different than what everyone else means when they say it?

Snake Oil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157535)

They should try the Poligrip test Beavis and Butthead vs the lie detector [youtube.com]

Torture, Truth Serum, Spin the Bottle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157607)

Considering the trend, Judicial Ouija boards migh be coming out soon. We will then discover that, what seemed to be mere gibberish before, in others instances, was actually Ouija NOLA.

There was (probably, still is) a tribe in Africa that had a "magic needle" in the Justice God's dark hut. Difficult cases had the suspects introduced one at a time. When the guilty individual stepped in, the magic needle would jump to life and start attacking the suspect all over - until he confessed. Or, at least, that is what the locals and a few other outsiders claimed to have seen.

The US is on the fast track, for that one - or something a lot like it.

He obviously has to be insane (2)

obarthelemy (160321) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157627)

There's no possible positive outcome for him. And it shows utter lack of empathy. And it doesn't really achieve any goals. I mean, the 9/11 terrorists at least believed they would be getting heaven (with virgins on top), empathized with people back home, and achieved the goal of getting some kind of message out and terrorizing the US. He achieved nothing remotely close to any of that.

That's not to say he shouldn't be judged though. Killers are killers, all are some kind of insane.

Re:He obviously has to be insane (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157735)

Killers are killers, all are some kind of insane.

Most that are violent, most that kill, are NOT mentally ill. "Crazy" has evolved in our language, especially among those with poor vocabulary, to describe anything that we can't quite understand. If we want to redefine the concept, then we should really start calling the legitimately, medically mentally ill something else... because the overwhelming majority of the mentally ill, who are non-violent, are perceived as possibly violent killers due to their medical condition. The percentage of violent tendencies in the mentally ill is the same as in the general population... about 1%. These poor bastards have enough to content with in their lives without also being incorrectly labeled as also criminally violent.

Re:He obviously has to be insane (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157903)

Exactly. 'insane' now just means 'people who do bad things, restrictions on whom should not be applied to us because we are sane'.

Supporting the 'restrictions should not be placed on good people because bad people ignore restrictions anyway' logic bomb.

Re:He obviously has to be insane (3, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157883)

> 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:He obviously has to be insane (2)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157979)

That's not to say he shouldn't be judged though. Killers are killers, all are some kind of insane.

I was always thought that there was an interesting argument in Starship Troopers, when Dillinger is being hung (note that I am not necessarily advocating this, but I will admit that I support capital punishment):

If Dillinger had understood what he was doing (which seemed incredible) then he got what was coming to him. .. except that it seemed a shame that he hadn’t suffered as much as had little Barbara Anne — he practically hadn’t suffered at all.

But suppose, as seemed more likely, that he was so crazy that he had never been aware that he was doing anything wrong? What then?...

I couldn’t see but two possibilities. Either he couldn’t be made well in which case he was better dead for his own sake and for the safety of others—or he could be treated and made sane. In which case (it seemed to me) if he ever became sane enough for civilized society. .. and thought over what he had done while he was “sick”—what could be left for him but suicide? How could he live with himself? And suppose he escaped before he was cured and did the same thing again? And maybe again? How do you explain that to bereaved parents? In view of his record? I couldn’t see but one answer.

Re:He obviously has to be insane (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158201)

Virgins on top? hmmm, sounds like a fine deal ;)

Re:He obviously has to be insane (1)

mrbester (200927) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158227)

The virgins are on top? I'm converting right now!

In English, please (5, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157649)

Or at least with correct punctuation and grammar.

James Holmes representation

Sounds like the name of a law firm. I assume what was meant was "James Holmes's representation."

did not enter a plea today in with regards to the Aurora, Co. Movie theater shooting

Whut?

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'

Too many "that"s.

with the possibility of medically appropriate substances could be used

Either "with the possibility that..." or "...being used."

Holmes defense

"Holmes's defense"

but as the previous article seems to infer that some compromises are being worked out.

This one's hard to parse. Is it "but as the previous article seems to infer, some compromises are being worked out."? Also, which "previous" article? I wouldn't be surprised if you've got "infer" and "imply" mixed up as well, but as I can't work out which article is being referred to, I can't check this.

This certainly raises legal questions on how this is being played out 5th, 14th amendments.

Err, yes, it does. Wait, what?

Slashdot. Unreadable news to annoy nerds.

Re:In English, please (4, Funny)

OzPeter (195038) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157771)

Or at least with correct punctuation and grammar.

You must be new here. Pointing out that the editors are clueless idiots and then having them ignore any valid criticism is just a part of "charm" of the site.

Re:In English, please (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157933)

Shut the fuck up.
If your brain is so fucked up that it cant ignore things like a missing apostrophe, then you are the one with a problem.

Ohh. BTW It is "Holmes' " You drop the trailing s when following an s. I love it when the hypocrites whine about someone else's punctuation, but can't even manage their own.

So SHUT THE FUCK UP!

No evidence that he did it - whatsoever (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157703)

So - a 'masked man' allegedly committed this crime - no CCTV footage whatsoever, of ANYBODY entering the cinema through the normal, front entrance, the police ALLEGEDLY found Holmes sitting in a car - in a DRUGGED STATE, out the back of the cinema, and in the car were some weapons.
Holmes was clearly drugged out of his skull while in court, as can clearly be seen by the video footage. What really happened?
Probably the same as at Sandy Hook - nothing at all. Probably nobody was shot, this never happened, it's just another sick attempt by the U.S. government to take guns off their 'cattle'...

Re:No evidence that he did it - whatsoever (1)

eyenot (102141) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157797)

I wasn't aware of all that. So Holmes wasn't just blazing mad with his guns in the theatre? I figured they would have picked him up based on some kind of witness testimony. Now I think I understand why some people are harping on and on about "two shooters". I simply dismissed it as confusion on behalf of the addled victims. But now it seems to be an important detail, especially considering this guy is actually in court on what sounds like dubious "evidence". And, yeah, the guy was super-drugged the first time we saw him in court. I dunno what they changed it to but he's pretty much not-there this time around, either.

Re:No evidence that he did it - whatsoever (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157909)

I wasn't aware of all that.

It's not mandatory to believe everything an A/C claims on Slashdot.

How much money and time are we wasting on this guy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157755)

$40,000+/year to house, feed, and medicate him, tens of thousands in legal and court fees, hours of people's lives lost...

Everyone knows he did it beyond a shadow of a doubt, and if he had been shot by police at the scene, it would have saved us more money than I and my 10 co-workers pay in taxes each year. I can think of thousands of things that would be better to spend those tax dollars on.

Insane or not, Low IQ or not, the death penalty should be used for these people who have no shot at ever getting out of prison.

Re:How much money and time are we wasting on this (2)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157897)

I've always heard that the death penalty involves the automatic appeals process that goes all the way up to the Supreme Court, and costs two to three million dollars. So $40,000 - $60,000 a year works out to be cheaper in the long run. The debate on whether it is cheaper to warehouse killers vs, the lawyer/court costs seems to be neverending.

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000 [procon.org]

Re:How much money and time are we wasting on this (2)

Let's All Be Chinese (2654985) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158145)

That's fairly natural. The point of most discussion in the USoA has nothing to do with what it says on the tin. The real issue is simply which side you're on, for on any one issue, there's only room for two sides in that big country yonder. Want more choice? Just add issues.

And why that? Why, to villify the other side, of course! What other point could there be?

So big ticket issues become trench warfare, where movement back and forth is guaranteed to be minute and always at gigantic cost. This is the modern interpretation of an "inefficient government"; its very purpose is to be ponderous, and since so many people funnel so much effort to butt heads with the other side on increasingly trivial things, expensive to boot. Also because of the pork barrelling, of course, for why should other people get all the money?

In other words, if you want any one issue to be efficiently resolved, you have to game the system somehow, for it is the system that requires costing a lot while resolving nothing.

You can easily see that this is not inherent in politics, just in American[tm] politics, by looking over the borders. For example, there's countries that decide to not ever even give life sentences, nevermind death penalty. Norway is a good example.

On the other hand, there's countries like those with the Sharia, where you'll get your head lopped off no sweat. Or like China used to do: Shoot the accused and charge the family for the bullet spent. Now they just drive death vans around, with Yu Di, MD in attendance.

If you really wanted efficient, you could have it. So one could conclude that doing your level best to not have efficient means that having efficient is simply not important here.

Precedent for use on law enforcement and govt? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157811)

So the next time they find a body lodged underneath a house with 600 bullets in it, we can use this on the police officers involved? "Sorry guys, we were on patrol and found a kid who backtalked us. We chased him and shot him hundreds of times, then planted a weapon on his remains."

Or is this only for use on non-cops, non-government and non-ruling-class?

Severe Risks (1)

gnalre (323830) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157819)

One danger is that they may give him too much and he starts saying weird things about frogs...(Apologies to DNA)

Re:Severe Risks (1)

mrbester (200927) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158241)

Or he does a Hannibal Lecter and gives them a recipe for dip.

catch-22 (1)

FranTaylor (164577) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157927)

If they judge him insane, then he can claim that he was incapable of making the decision to allow the truth serum

If they judge him sane, then he can claim that any information gathered under truth serum is tainted; since he was already sane, the truth serum can only make him less sane.

Testimony Given Under Duress (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157961)

Testimony Given under Duress or coercion is usually tossed out. How is this any different? I'm not defending this guy but I see a huge problem with the tactic

Infer /= Imply (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158035)

" Holmes defense looks to have initially objected to this but as the previous article seems to infer that some compromises are being worked out"

Sure it works - (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158057)

it is as effective as Roman emperors diving the future from the study of chicken entrails.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?