Why the US Supreme Court has truth methods unconstitutional ?

[ask why]

Do you want to know the facts about life and death crimes or material theft or damage? The only person who knows the answers to why and when a crime happened is the person involved in the crime. The accused will not offer the truth or reasoning for their actions. So it is time to take action to get answers without destroying a innocent persons reputation. In private with both councils and authorities, questioning accused will get all information to prosecute or not as the evidence direct. The Supreme Court in the 20's said confessions with truth methods are said while accused are not in control so not constitutional for accused. So getting the facts, only an involved person could know, will give direction to officials to pursue prosecution or not. Change has to come in the legal system. It will not be popular and excepted by all. We need to stop crime, by opening fact finding opportunities and prosecuting the guilty.

I am sorry- I am sorry that what you are saying makes so little sense.

The Supreme Court in the 20's said confessions with truth methods are said while accused are not in control so not constitutional for accused.

What do you think you mean here? What is a 'truth method'?

You said you have suffered at the hands of lawyers- regarding criminal or civil matters? Do you know the difference?

If you are accused of a crime, you have Constitutional protections. That is the only reason why the Supreme Court rules on criminal cases- regarding whether Constitutional protections have been violated.

Perhaps you should read the Bill of Rights? Specifically the 4th through the 6th Amendments.

And then read some of the Supreme Court cases regarding the Bill of Rights.

Do you want to know the facts about life and death crimes or material theft or damage? The only person who knows the answers to why and when a crime happened is the person involved in the crime. The accused will not offer the truth or reasoning for their actions. So it is time to take action

to get answers without destroying a innocent persons reputation. In private with both councils and authorities, questioning accused will get all information to prosecute or not as the evidence direct. The Supreme Court in the 20's said confessions with truth methods are said while accused are not in control so not constitutional for accused. So getting the facts, only an involved person could know, will give direction to officials to pursue prosecution or not. Change has to come in the legal system. It will not be popular and excepted by all. We need to stop crime, by opening fact finding opportunities and prosecuting the guilty.

I am sorry- I am sorry that what you are saying makes so little sense.

The Supreme Court in the 20's said confessions with truth methods are said while accused are not in control so not constitutional for accused.

What do you think you mean here? What is a 'truth method'?

You said you have suffered at the hands of lawyers- regarding criminal or civil matters? Do you know the difference?

If you are accused of a crime, you have Constitutional protections. That is the only reason why the Supreme Court rules on criminal cases- regarding whether Constitutional protections have been violated.

Perhaps you should read the Bill of Rights? Specifically the 4th through the 6th Amendments.

And then read some of the Supreme Court cases regarding the Bill of Rights.

Excuse my poor English! The Supreme Court in the 20's ruled it was unconstitutional to use truth serums or lie detectors. So, lets degrade this person trying to improve his country. I think we have so many laws on the books, it is allowing loop holes that savvy lawyers use to help clients they represent. The laws of our country, were not written so criminals can find ways out of trouble for crimes they comment. That is the problem. How do we revise laws to deal with the criminal actions over running our courts, costing our communities and corporations. I'm writing here to try to get discussion from our young minds. Perhaps I was looking for to much of you.

 

[BULLDOG]

Justice for all means you can have your day in court.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, one is appointed to you. Your freedom comment is just off the wall.

The court system does not prevent you from being falsely accused, it is meant for the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt you did something illegal.

All attempts are made to preserve innocence, until guilt is proven.

Basically you have the legal system backwards. Welcome to America.

I'm an American tired of the waist in time and money around criminal acts being tried in our courts. Is there a better system? NO! Can it be improved? YES! Have I been a victim of savvy lawyers twisting the truth, making evidence be enaddmissable, YES! I may have explained my comments poorly. I'm asking why? Why do we have to give an accused the right of privacy? The victims had no choice. Does't matter if it was life and death, or material. The damage lives on in victims minds. Think of the reduction in crimes. When a suspect is questioned with both councils present in a secured room. Questions could be asked, and hopefully information about an incident will give authorities the facts they need to make a case. The accused can be questioned with nothing release to media until the officials know they have a case. There needs to be some restructuring in our laws to put law enforcement over high priced lawyers for the defense. Why do we let the wealthy defense lawyers control our court rooms. Do whats right, not what's written to help suspects beat a criminal charge.

The laws aren't written to help a guilty person get off. They are written to give an innocent person a better chance of not being wrongly convicted. We are all innocent until we are proven guilty. I don't know about you, but if somebody accuses me of wrong doing, I don't want my rights removed just because somebody accused me.

I do not want my rights waved either. If you have a better way to catch criminals and stop them, please advise. We can't sit by with our legal system being dominated by savvy lawyers getting criminals off from prosecution and doing disjustice to victims. There has to be a change, and it will upset everyone. Good, valued reasons pro and con can be debated. Change needs to come. A fortune is spent by communities fighting crime and corporations settling law suits. We need to protect an innocent that is being accused from being exposed until a case is going to trail. This means the media holds information from public until authorities release a pending trial. Officials need to use every tool available to collect facts, knowing all persons involved and lose and gains achieved, and damages. Something that would be great, but I doubt could happen in my life time. Lawyers never represent killers to get them free of prosecution.

I'm sure there are changes that could be made, but I don't know enough of the details to know what those changes might be. I suspect you don't either.

 

[saveliberty]

the constitution doesn't apply to victims. it is intended to apply to the accused.

you think defendants should be divested of their rights to pacify someone's desire for vengeance?

Basically what I heard him saying.

 

[saveliberty]

]
Excuse my poor English! The Supreme Court in the 20's ruled it was unconstitutional to use truth serums or lie detectors. So, lets degrade this person trying to improve his country. I think we have so many laws on the books, it is allowing loop holes that savvy lawyers use to help clients they represent. The laws of our country, were not written so criminals can find ways out of trouble for crimes they comment. That is the problem. How do we revise laws to deal with the criminal actions over running our courts, costing our communities and corporations. I'm writing here to try to get discussion from our young minds. Perhaps I was looking for to much of you.

Most Americans are not going to find giving up Constitutional protections as an improvement. In the end many criminal cases are decided by your peers. These lawyers you speak of are addressing them. I was involved in a jury where we convicted on four of five counts. The police and prosecutor did a poor job on the fifth one. After the trial I ran into the defense attorney weeks later. The guy convicted had been in jail twice before for the same thing. We were not told that, but a proper decision was reached without that information.

 

[TNHarley]

use truth serums? Seriously?

i'll refer you to the fifth amendment.

but thanks for once again being 100% wrong.

now laugh and pretend you know something.

Wrong about what?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I'm an American tired of the waist in time and money around criminal acts being tried in our courts. Is there a better system? NO! Can it be improved? YES! Have I been a victim of savvy lawyers twisting the truth, making evidence be enaddmissable, YES! I may have explained my comments poorly. I'm asking why? Why do we have to give an accused the right of privacy? The victims had no choice. Does't matter if it was life and death, or material. The damage lives on in victims minds. Think of the reduction in crimes. When a suspect is questioned with both councils present in a secured room. Questions could be asked, and hopefully information about an incident will give authorities the facts they need to make a case. The accused can be questioned with nothing release to media until the officials know they have a case. There needs to be some restructuring in our laws to put law enforcement over high priced lawyers for the defense. Why do we let the wealthy defense lawyers control our court rooms. Do whats right, not what's written to help suspects beat a criminal charge.

Criminals have been convicted. The accused are innocent until proven guilty. The accused are not required to afford the prosecutor evidence of the crime. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Sounds like you are willing to make the accused a victim of lesser rights and protections. .

The Rule of Law Is the Law of the Rulers

Do the math. If they (not we, the people) let ten guilty men go free rather than risk one person from being convicted by what they (not we) say is insufficient evidence, the future victims of the guilty that have been turned loose will number in the hundreds.

Do the language. Innocence is a judgment, so people are not innocent until proven guilty, That's lawyers' doubletalk, just like first conviction is translated into "first offense."

As for the criminal-loving Fifth Amendment, wasn't NIxon forced to incriminate himself by turning over the Watergate tapes?

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm an American tired of the waist in time and money around criminal acts being tried in our courts. Is there a better system? NO! Can it be improved? YES! Have I been a victim of savvy lawyers twisting the truth, making evidence be enaddmissable, YES! I may have explained my comments poorly. I'm asking why? Why do we have to give an accused the right of privacy? The victims had no choice. Does't matter if it was life and death, or material. The damage lives on in victims minds. Think of the reduction in crimes. When a suspect is questioned with both councils present in a secured room. Questions could be asked, and hopefully information about an incident will give authorities the facts they need to make a case. The accused can be questioned with nothing release to media until the officials know they have a case. There needs to be some restructuring in our laws to put law enforcement over high priced lawyers for the defense. Why do we let the wealthy defense lawyers control our court rooms. Do whats right, not what's written to help suspects beat a criminal charge.

Criminals have been convicted. The accused are innocent until proven guilty. The accused are not required to afford the prosecutor evidence of the crime. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Sounds like you are willing to make the accused a victim of lesser rights and protections. .

The Rule of Law Is the Law of the Rulers

Do the math. If they (not we, the people) let ten guilty men go free rather than risk one person from being convicted by what they (not we) say is insufficient evidence, the future victims of the guilty that have been turned loose will number in the hundreds.

Do the language. Innocence is a judgment, so people are not innocent until proven guilty, That's lawyers' doubletalk, just like first conviction is translated into "first offense."

As for the criminal-loving Fifth Amendment, wasn't NIxon forced to incriminate himself by turning over the Watergate tapes?

When did you first decide we shouldn't have constitutional rights?

 

[ask why]

]
Excuse my poor English! The Supreme Court in the 20's ruled it was unconstitutional to use truth serums or lie detectors. So, lets degrade this person trying to improve his country. I think we have so many laws on the books, it is allowing loop holes that savvy lawyers use to help clients they represent. The laws of our country, were not written so criminals can find ways out of trouble for crimes they comment. That is the problem. How do we revise laws to deal with the criminal actions over running our courts, costing our communities and corporations. I'm writing here to try to get discussion from our young minds. Perhaps I was looking for to much of you.

Most Americans are not going to find giving up Constitutional protections as an improvement. In the end many criminal cases are decided by your peers. These lawyers you speak of are addressing them. I was involved in a jury where we convicted on four of five counts. The police and prosecutor did a poor job on the fifth one. After the trial I ran into the defense attorney weeks later. The guy convicted had been in jail twice before for the same thing. We were not told that, but a proper decision was reached without that information.

Who prospered by the information that was held from you? The accused! Why? Why do we not use all evidence to get the needed information to get convictions and clearance of envolvment. That is my question? Why don't we remove the safety for accused by making past history, and all information available to law enforcement to develop a case. Using your own example! Now, how do we proceed to revise our laws to protect the innocent while finding the truth. Thus saving time, money, assets and lives. I do not believe we should just talk about it. It's time to take action! Do I really have to ask WHY?

 

[ask why]

use truth serums? Seriously?

WHY? I looked up the Supreme court ruling again in regard to the Supreme Court ruling on truth serums in 1928. The justices concluded that not all truth serums are 100% accurate. They also stated an interviewer could make a suggestion of guilt to a subject, and they might think they are guilty. The use of these methods were not pursued aggressively after the ruling. We gave up a tool that could work, in one form or another, just not and one method, 100%. The question of guilt was proven could be implanted by questioner, so not valid for confession. WHY? don't we use these tools to answer questions. The questioner could not implant information about an incident they do not know the answers too. With video and audio recording of interview under truth serums with both council present. The unknown questions can be asked. What, When, Where, How, Why. This would give the authorities direction to find facts to pursue a case or not. There is a legal issue about not testifying against ones self. I believe this could be overcome. Even by the biggest bleeding hearts. The interviewing is done in private overseen by both legal council. If authorities do not see a case with the information leading to hard evidence. The suspects identification would not be released. More importantly, if facts are found, the suspect goes to court with authorities knowing facts about the case, no speculation. No repeat crimes! WHY? am I, a retired salesmen, seeing this should be rewritten by the Supreme Court. This will save time, money and lives!

 

[saveliberty]

Who prospered by the information that was held from you? The accused! Why? Why do we not use all evidence to get the needed information to get convictions and clearance of envolvment. That is my question? Why don't we remove the safety for accused by making past history, and all information available to law enforcement to develop a case. Using your own example! Now, how do we proceed to revise our laws to protect the innocent while finding the truth. Thus saving time, money, assets and lives. I do not believe we should just talk about it. It's time to take action! Do I really have to ask WHY?

You may not remove Constitutional protections because it is not expedient, results are not to your liking or justice does not meet your standards. Your path would lead to wrongful convictions, which is worse than letting a guilty person go.

 

[ask why]

Who prospered by the information that was held from you? The accused! Why? Why do we not use all evidence to get the needed information to get convictions and clearance of envolvment. That is my question? Why don't we remove the safety for accused by making past history, and all information available to law enforcement to develop a case. Using your own example! Now, how do we proceed to revise our laws to protect the innocent while finding the truth. Thus saving time, money, assets and lives. I do not believe we should just talk about it. It's time to take action! Do I really have to ask WHY?

You may not remove Constitutional protections because it is not expedient, results are not to your liking or justice does not meet your standards. Your path would lead to wrongful convictions, which is worse than letting a guilty person go.

Excuse my not understanding you. The worst of crimes, lets use for example. A killer, freed to kill again, freed again and killed. He is not found guilty for many legal reasons, not truthful factual reasons. He has been the number one suspect in all cases that resulted in a dead person and families destroyed. The innocent victims, both dead and alive, did not ask for this to happen to them. Instead of interviewing this person with council present, asking questions giving authorities direction for finding EVIDENCE, to clear or seek prosecution. Information that only the guilty person could know, would be used to convict by a jury of his peers. The killer could be stopped, by using a little of their time under supervised questioning using serums and any non torture technics available today. Everyone connected to a case is questioned for what they saw and know about the people involved as standard procedure. Within those interviews authorities find people of interest that may have motive. This will happen no matter our view or wishes. The million dollar question? Do you want every option available to find a person, with motive, guilty or not guilty with the best facts known? Let's give victims rights the advantage over accused hiding behind legal issues.

 

[Syriusly]

Do you want to know the facts about life and death crimes or material theft or damage? The only person who knows the answers to why and when a crime happened is the person involved in the crime. The accused will not offer the truth or reasoning for their actions. So it is time to take action to get answers without destroying a innocent persons reputation. In private with both councils and authorities, questioning accused will get all information to prosecute or not as the evidence direct. The Supreme Court in the 20's said confessions with truth methods are said while accused are not in control so not constitutional for accused. So getting the facts, only an involved person could know, will give direction to officials to pursue prosecution or not. Change has to come in the legal system. It will not be popular and excepted by all. We need to stop crime, by opening fact finding opportunities and prosecuting the guilty.

I am sorry- I am sorry that what you are saying makes so little sense.

The Supreme Court in the 20's said confessions with truth methods are said while accused are not in control so not constitutional for accused.

What do you think you mean here? What is a 'truth method'?

You said you have suffered at the hands of lawyers- regarding criminal or civil matters? Do you know the difference?

If you are accused of a crime, you have Constitutional protections. That is the only reason why the Supreme Court rules on criminal cases- regarding whether Constitutional protections have been violated.

Perhaps you should read the Bill of Rights? Specifically the 4th through the 6th Amendments.

And then read some of the Supreme Court cases regarding the Bill of Rights.

Do you want to know the facts about life and death crimes or material theft or damage? The only person who knows the answers to why and when a crime happened is the person involved in the crime. The accused will not offer the truth or reasoning for their actions. So it is time to take action

to get answers without destroying a innocent persons reputation. In private with both councils and authorities, questioning accused will get all information to prosecute or not as the evidence direct. The Supreme Court in the 20's said confessions with truth methods are said while accused are not in control so not constitutional for accused. So getting the facts, only an involved person could know, will give direction to officials to pursue prosecution or not. Change has to come in the legal system. It will not be popular and excepted by all. We need to stop crime, by opening fact finding opportunities and prosecuting the guilty.

I am sorry- I am sorry that what you are saying makes so little sense.

The Supreme Court in the 20's said confessions with truth methods are said while accused are not in control so not constitutional for accused.

What do you think you mean here? What is a 'truth method'?

You said you have suffered at the hands of lawyers- regarding criminal or civil matters? Do you know the difference?

If you are accused of a crime, you have Constitutional protections. That is the only reason why the Supreme Court rules on criminal cases- regarding whether Constitutional protections have been violated.

Perhaps you should read the Bill of Rights? Specifically the 4th through the 6th Amendments.

And then read some of the Supreme Court cases regarding the Bill of Rights.

Excuse my poor English! The Supreme Court in the 20's ruled it was unconstitutional to use truth serums or lie detectors. So, lets degrade this person trying to improve his country. I think we have so many laws on the books, it is allowing loop holes that savvy lawyers use to help clients they represent. The laws of our country, were not written so criminals can find ways out of trouble for crimes they comment. That is the problem. How do we revise laws to deal with the criminal actions over running our courts, costing our communities and corporations. I'm writing here to try to get discussion from our young minds. Perhaps I was looking for to much of you.

Frankly its not 'poor English' it is poor communications skills.

What Supreme Court case? I think you are just repeating something that you have heard- and you don't know what you are talking about.

And you completely ignored my pointing out the Bill of Rights- and frankly you ignore the Bill of Rights in this entire thread. The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- and the Constitution is the bedrock of the United States.

You are right though- the 'laws' are not written so 'criminals' can find their way out of trouble- laws are written to prevent crime, and penalize criminals. The Bill of Rights was written to protect those falsely accused of crimes- because that is an easy way for government to abuse authority.

Now regarding 'truth serums' and 'lie detectors'- why aren't those allowed as evidence in criminal courts?

There are two issues here:
A) Our right against self incrimination- the Bill of Right says we cannot be forced to self incriminate- from the 5th Amendment:
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
B) But there are cases where a defendant may want to be able to use a lie detector as evidence- and it may not be allowed- because lie detectors are not infallible- they can be beaten and they can be fooled. 'Truth serums' I believe are more of a made up terms- there are lots of drugs that will lower a persons ability to lie- but can also allow a person's mind ot just make crap up. Neither are reliable.

What are the instances of criminals getting away with stuff that you are so concerned about? We have more people imprisoned than anyone else. Criminals are getting convicted all the time.

 

[Syriusly]

use truth serums? Seriously?

WHY? I looked up the Supreme court ruling again in regard to the Supreme Court ruling on truth serums in 1928. The justices concluded that not all truth serums are 100% accurate. They also stated an interviewer could make a suggestion of guilt to a subject, and they might think they are guilty. The use of these methods were not pursued aggressively after the ruling. We gave up a tool that could work, in one form or another, just not and one method, 100%. The question of guilt was proven could be implanted by questioner, so not valid for confession. WHY? don't we use these tools to answer questions. The questioner could not implant information about an incident they do not know the answers too. With video and audio recording of interview under truth serums with both council present. The unknown questions can be asked. What, When, Where, How, Why. This would give the authorities direction to find facts to pursue a case or not. There is a legal issue about not testifying against ones self. I believe this could be overcome. Even by the biggest bleeding hearts. The interviewing is done in private overseen by both legal council. If authorities do not see a case with the information leading to hard evidence. The suspects identification would not be released. More importantly, if facts are found, the suspect goes to court with authorities knowing facts about the case, no speculation. No repeat crimes! WHY? am I, a retired salesmen, seeing this should be rewritten by the Supreme Court. This will save time, money and lives!

1928? I found one case from the 60's- and it is worth a read.
FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Numerous decisions of this Court have established the standards governing the admissibility of confessions into evidence. If an individual's "will was overborne" 2 or if his confession was not "the product of a rational intellect and a free will," 3 his confession is inadmissible because coerced. These standards are applicable whether a confession is the product of physical intimidation or psychological pressure and, of course, are equally applicable to a drug-induced statement.

We already have a problem with persons who falsely confess to crimes- sometimes they do so because they are mentally ill, and are easily suggestable, other times they are coerced by police- out of camera.

John Grisham wrote an excellent non-fiction book on the coerced confession of a mentally ill man for murder.

The issue comes down to the Constitutional Rights we all have- and the unreliability of 'truth serums' and lie detectors.

But good news for you- defendants can't use lie detector tests or 'truth serums' in evidence either.

 

[ask why]

use truth serums? Seriously?

WHY? I looked up the Supreme court ruling again in regard to the Supreme Court ruling on truth serums in 1928. The justices concluded that not all truth serums are 100% accurate. They also stated an interviewer could make a suggestion of guilt to a subject, and they might think they are guilty. The use of these methods were not pursued aggressively after the ruling. We gave up a tool that could work, in one form or another, just not and one method, 100%. The question of guilt was proven could be implanted by questioner, so not valid for confession. WHY? don't we use these tools to answer questions. The questioner could not implant information about an incident they do not know the answers too. With video and audio recording of interview under truth serums with both council present. The unknown questions can be asked. What, When, Where, How, Why. This would give the authorities direction to find facts to pursue a case or not. There is a legal issue about not testifying against ones self. I believe this could be overcome. Even by the biggest bleeding hearts. The interviewing is done in private overseen by both legal council. If authorities do not see a case with the information leading to hard evidence. The suspects identification would not be released. More importantly, if facts are found, the suspect goes to court with authorities knowing facts about the case, no speculation. No repeat crimes! WHY? am I, a retired salesmen, seeing this should be rewritten by the Supreme Court. This will save time, money and lives!

1928? I found one case from the 60's- and it is worth a read.
FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Numerous decisions of this Court have established the standards governing the admissibility of confessions into evidence. If an individual's "will was overborne" 2 or if his confession was not "the product of a rational intellect and a free will," 3 his confession is inadmissible because coerced. These standards are applicable whether a confession is the product of physical intimidation or psychological pressure and, of course, are equally applicable to a drug-induced statement.

We already have a problem with persons who falsely confess to crimes- sometimes they do so because they are mentally ill, and are easily suggestable, other times they are coerced by police- out of camera.

John Grisham wrote an excellent non-fiction book on the coerced confession of a mentally ill man for murder.

The issue comes down to the Constitutional Rights we all have- and the unreliability of 'truth serums' and lie detectors.

But good news for you- defendants can't use lie detector tests or 'truth serums' in evidence either.

I never said use the serums to ask of a person guilt. I said, ask questions to get information about a case to assist authorities in finding evidence.
Of course, there are also moral and legal issues to be considered when using truth serum, effective or not. In 1963, the Supreme Court heard the case Townsend v. Sain, the petitioner was a man confessed to a murder while under the influence of “truth serum” drugs and believed that his constitutional rights had been violated. He argued that the usage of the drugs resulted in him being coerced into confession without the due process of law, which went against the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in the accused’s favour, holding that confessions resulting from the use of truth serum were “unconstitutionally coerced.” Use as a informational gathering evidence tool, not for confessions.

 

[ask why]

use truth serums? Seriously?

WHY? I looked up the Supreme court ruling again in regard to the Supreme Court ruling on truth serums in 1928. The justices concluded that not all truth serums are 100% accurate. They also stated an interviewer could make a suggestion of guilt to a subject, and they might think they are guilty. The use of these methods were not pursued aggressively after the ruling. We gave up a tool that could work, in one form or another, just not and one method, 100%. The question of guilt was proven could be implanted by questioner, so not valid for confession. WHY? don't we use these tools to answer questions. The questioner could not implant information about an incident they do not know the answers too. With video and audio recording of interview under truth serums with both council present. The unknown questions can be asked. What, When, Where, How, Why. This would give the authorities direction to find facts to pursue a case or not. There is a legal issue about not testifying against ones self. I believe this could be overcome. Even by the biggest bleeding hearts. The interviewing is done in private overseen by both legal council. If authorities do not see a case with the information leading to hard evidence. The suspects identification would not be released. More importantly, if facts are found, the suspect goes to court with authorities knowing facts about the case, no speculation. No repeat crimes! WHY? am I, a retired salesmen, seeing this should be rewritten by the Supreme Court. This will save time, money and lives!

1928? I found one case from the 60's- and it is worth a read.
FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Numerous decisions of this Court have established the standards governing the admissibility of confessions into evidence. If an individual's "will was overborne" 2 or if his confession was not "the product of a rational intellect and a free will," 3 his confession is inadmissible because coerced. These standards are applicable whether a confession is the product of physical intimidation or psychological pressure and, of course, are equally applicable to a drug-induced statement.

We already have a problem with persons who falsely confess to crimes- sometimes they do so because they are mentally ill, and are easily suggestable, other times they are coerced by police- out of camera.

John Grisham wrote an excellent non-fiction book on the coerced confession of a mentally ill man for murder.

The issue comes down to the Constitutional Rights we all have- and the unreliability of 'truth serums' and lie detectors.

But good news for you- defendants can't use lie detector tests or 'truth serums' in evidence either.

 

[ask why]

I was not recommending the serums be used for confessions. I was suggesting that the tool of serums and other methods of achieving truth, be used to find evidence. Although the methods are not 100%, they might lead to facts that would help authorities make a case, pro or con.

 

[danielpalos]

Depends on the Truth method. Market based metrics should be a requirement under any form of capitalism.

War time tax rates indicates real times of war; any lack of such rates, means it is a political scam.

 

[ask why]

I'm an American tired of the waist in time and money around criminal acts being tried in our courts. Is there a better system? NO! Can it be improved? YES! Have I been a victim of savvy lawyers twisting the truth, making evidence be enaddmissable, YES! I may have explained my comments poorly. I'm asking why? Why do we have to give an accused the right of privacy? The victims had no choice. Does't matter if it was life and death, or material. The damage lives on in victims minds. Think of the reduction in crimes. When a suspect is questioned with both councils present in a secured room. Questions could be asked, and hopefully information about an incident will give authorities the facts they need to make a case. The accused can be questioned with nothing release to media until the officials know they have a case. There needs to be some restructuring in our laws to put law enforcement over high priced lawyers for the defense. Why do we let the wealthy defense lawyers control our court rooms. Do whats right, not what's written to help suspects beat a criminal charge.

Criminals have been convicted. The accused are innocent until proven guilty. The accused are not required to afford the prosecutor evidence of the crime. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Sounds like you are willing to make the accused a victim of lesser rights and protections. .

The Rule of Law Is the Law of the Rulers

Do the math. If they (not we, the people) let ten guilty men go free rather than risk one person from being convicted by what they (not we) say is insufficient evidence, the future victims of the guilty that have been turned loose will number in the hundreds.

Do the language. Innocence is a judgment, so people are not innocent until proven guilty, That's lawyers' doubletalk, just like first conviction is translated into "first offense."

As for the criminal-loving Fifth Amendment, wasn't NIxon forced to incriminate himself by turning over the Watergate tapes?

When did you first decide we shouldn't have constitutional rights?

NEVER, we are an exceptional country because of the Constitution and many other reasons. The fact we cannot reach a understanding of our views is frustrating, a result of our freedom of speech and ability to express it.

Something has to been done restructuring our laws. I do not mean in one area of law, but all laws. We have added so many revisions to the main concept that actions cross each other and and distort actual meaning.

If we do not start now, the when. ARE you telling me that everything is as good as it can get today. I do not know what to say, How or what I say to you, I hopefully am reaching others on this post, and the brilliant minds in America, decide to get involved.

Pro or Con. We are the people. Concepts written years ago, need to be updated with the times, or re confirmed.

 

[ask why]

Justice for all means you can have your day in court.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, one is appointed to you. Your freedom comment is just off the wall.

The court system does not prevent you from being falsely accused, it is meant for the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt you did something illegal.

All attempts are made to preserve innocence, until guilt is proven.

Basically you have the legal system backwards. Welcome to America.

I'm an American tired of the waist in time and money around criminal acts being tried in our courts. Is there a better system? NO! Can it be improved? YES! Have I been a victim of savvy lawyers twisting the truth, making evidence be enaddmissable, YES! I may have explained my comments poorly. I'm asking why? Why do we have to give an accused the right of privacy? The victims had no choice. Does't matter if it was life and death, or material. The damage lives on in victims minds. Think of the reduction in crimes. When a suspect is questioned with both councils present in a secured room. Questions could be asked, and hopefully information about an incident will give authorities the facts they need to make a case. The accused can be questioned with nothing release to media until the officials know they have a case. There needs to be some restructuring in our laws to put law enforcement over high priced lawyers for the defense. Why do we let the wealthy defense lawyers control our court rooms. Do whats right, not what's written to help suspects beat a criminal charge.

the constitution doesn't apply to victims. it is intended to apply to the accused.

you think defendants should be divested of their rights to pacify someone's desire for vengeance?

I'm not talking about private agendas or vengeance.

I'm speaking to the fact that only one person knows the facts about any crime, it's the criminal. If authorities find a suspect with motive, it is time to use all methods to find out what they know, or don't know, about a case.

Victims are forced to unwillingly expose their life.

It is time to get information from suspects with motive, without exposing who they are until authorities decide to process.

To complete the last thought. Anyone involved as witness or person of interest, is interviewed in private.

 

[MikeK]

Justice for all means you can have your day in court.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, one is appointed to you. Your freedom comment is just off the wall.

The court system does not prevent you from being falsely accused, it is meant for the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt you did something illegal.

All attempts are made to preserve innocence, until guilt is proven.

Basically you have the legal system backwards. Welcome to America.

I don't know where you live but I would wager heavily it is not in New York City or, probably, not in any other similarly massive metropolis wherein dozens if not hundreds of arrested persons are brought before an arraignment court five days (or nights) a week. While the vast majority of these individuals are guilty of the offense(s) they are charged with there is ample cause to believe that a small percentage of them are not. And while very few of their total number can afford to pay an experienced criminal lawyer to spend the time it will take to carefully investigate the circumstances surrounding their arrest and to properly prepare a defense, the rest will rely on the extremely limited resources of the public defender's office.

In New York City the public defender is the Legal Aid Society which typically is overburdened and cannot possibly provide the kind of representation and oversight which is absolutely essential to mounting an effective criminal defense. As the result of this inability of the System to provide more than the most superficial and glaringly inadequate representation for every insolvent individual charged with a crime the Innocence Project has begun to show that a surprising number of persons convicted of serious crimes and sentenced to long prison terms were clearly innocent of those crimes. The Cases & Exoneree Profiles - Innocence Project

The only point I wish to make here is that anyone who is not able to afford a lawyer, who knows how to navigate the intricately complicated criminal court system, is able to obtain and present the relevant facts and defend them against a false or mistaken criminal charge, can end up in prison -- as many individuals clearly, and shamefully, have.

So I wish to respectfully advise you that your belief that "All attempts are made to preserve innocence . . ." is misguided and misleading where larger communities are concerned. But If you live in a small town where the public defender is not overburdened with individual cases, has time to adequately investigate the relevant circumstances, to make all the necessary motions to examine and present evidence and to re-examine testimony, etc., then you have a valid point.