If a hypothetical “Truth Serum” were actually real, would you approve of it being *optional* to someone testifying in court (similar to polygraph)?

16 comments

1. Polygraphs aren’t optional, they’re completely inadmissible because they’re pseudoscientific horseshit.

2. That seems like a 5th Amendment violation.

3. No. A lot of those “optional” things end up being conditions of bail or punishment and stop being optional.

4. Sure it may technically be “optional”, but you know the prosecution would hammer it to the jury if the defendant refused. “He’s refused to take the truth serum! If he were truly innocent you know he would agree to take it”.

5. One of the issues even if optional is how people who choose not to take it will be treated. Juries will be suspicious of anyone who doesn’t take it, so it will effectively become mandatory if you don’t want to get a guilty verdict. Another issue is a truth serum may reduce their inhibitions and their filter, so it may not just be them telling the truth, it may be that they say something in the bluntest way possible rather than phrasing in a way that is more palatable to a judge and jury.

6. If we lived in a magical world and a wizard was brewing up a truth serum that was guaranteed the 100% accurate truth then sure just replace the whole court system with that.

   However there will never be such a thing. Any realistic idea of a truth serum would have a margin of error no matter how advanced the science gets and it would be ridiculous to take any testimony from a drug as fact in a court setting

7. I don’t know. First of all, polygraphs don’t actually work. but even if they did, what about people who say misleading statements or believe they’re telling the truth when they aren’t?

8. Polygraphs are not admissible.

9. You would still have *massive* issues with differing recollections, people that truly believe something that did not occur, mental disorders, incorrect recollections, subjective recollections or opinions, true lack of knowledge, etc.

   Layer on a huge dose of prejudice against anyone not volunteering to use this serum combined with extreme pressure to use it even if it harms your case.

   It would be fun to watch this nightmare scenario play out in the legal world.

10. What’s truth?

    It’s been proven time and time again that witnesses are unreliable. But if they say they saw a 6’5″ Asian woman wearing a polka dot jumpsuit committing a crime, THEY believe it. To them, it’s truth.

    Contract disputes are something else. Party A is going to believe they’re correct, same as Party B because how each of them interpret the contract.

    So who decides the truth?

11. Well… Polygraphs are mostly bullshit and their primary value is as a pressure tactic so I’m not sure how similar that would be.

    If someone wanted to submit to it to lend weight to their testimony that’s fine, as long as it doesn’t become compulsory.

    Eye witness testimony, even given with the utmost honesty and intent to help, is sketchy at best in many ways so this wouldn’t carry THAT much weight except for the accused.

12. No, at best, it’d need to [corroborate existing evidence](https://www.bhamwiki.com/w/Axe_syndicate).

13. If it was real, I doubt it would meet the threshold of 100% validity/reliability for it to go beyond reasonable doubt.

14. Absolutely

15. Assuming it was truly optional and seen as reliable, sure. It would (in theory at least) remove the likelihood of innocent people being convicted.

    Problem being even if it were truly optional then anyone not willing to take it would be viewed as suspicious.

16. How about mind-reading serum?

    Who cares, it’s not real.