PDA

View Full Version : Sodium Pentothal



Simplicity
08-12-2008, 08:21 AM
Sodium Pentothal, TRUTH SERUM should be used in cases like Caylee's. Her mother should be placed on a gurney and given a good dose of truth serum.

This would save tax payers millions of dollars and allow the family to move on.

Unfortunately, the crooked lawyers would cry and whine, discrimination! :boohoo:

Vegas Bride
08-12-2008, 10:46 AM
Oh how I wish this could be done!! I would also agree to something such as water boarding in a case like this.
It has to be very difficult for the people who are working there at the jail, it would be a good day if they'd put her into the general population where the other women could get ahold of her. Women in many ways are worse than the men in jail, they'd take care of her imo, especially the latin women, they wouldn't appreciate how she tried to pin this on a spanish woman.

VB

Bruce's_Mom
08-12-2008, 10:54 AM
The problem is not that using truth serum would be discrimination, but it would be a gross violation of constitutional rights and it is scientifically unreliable. First we all have an absolute right against self incrimination, when we say questioning stops or we need the assistance of counsel questioning stops. It is clear that has happened here. Second we cannot waive this right unless it is done knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, meaning without coercion or impairment. We have the right to be assisted by counsel during questioning, so that we are protected from coercion, etc. Against all these rights there is the exclusionary rule any evidence that is obtained unconstitutionally is per se inadmissible and any evidence found as a result of an unconstitutional search/confessions is fruits of the poisonous tree and is also inadmissible.

We have these rules not to protect Casey, but to protect you and me. Innocent people stand accused of crimes more often than you think, look at the Illinois death penalty cases. Similarly, folks are frustrated with the attorney I know, but he took an oath when becoming an attorney that he would maintain the confidences and "preserve inviolate" the secrets of his client. Attorney-client privilege is serious business, any violation could put his ability to practice law in jeopardy but also seriously harm his reputation in the legal community. Not only that but how effective would it be to utilize lawyers if they were going to rat you out?

QuickAttack
08-12-2008, 12:40 PM
The problem is not that using truth serum would be discrimination, but it would be a gross violation of constitutional rights and it is scientifically unreliable. First we all have an absolute right against self incrimination, when we say questioning stops or we need the assistance of counsel questioning stops. It is clear that has happened here. Second we cannot waive this right unless it is done knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, meaning without coercion or impairment. We have the right to be assisted by counsel during questioning, so that we are protected from coercion, etc. Against all these rights there is the exclusionary rule any evidence that is obtained unconstitutionally is per se inadmissible and any evidence found as a result of an unconstitutional search/confessions is fruits of the poisonous tree and is also inadmissible.

We have these rules not to protect Casey, but to protect you and me. Innocent people stand accused of crimes more often than you think, look at the Illinois death penalty cases. Similarly, folks are frustrated with the attorney I know, but he took an oath when becoming an attorney that he would maintain the confidences and "preserve inviolate" the secrets of his client. Attorney-client privilege is serious business, any violation could put his ability to practice law in jeopardy but also seriously harm his reputation in the legal community. Not only that but how effective would it be to utilize lawyers if they were going to rat you out?

:clap::clap::clap:

dee10134
08-12-2008, 12:45 PM
What about a consenting lie detector test? Yes, I know that it will not hold up in court, BUT we all know Casey's a liar; why don't they request a lie detector test to narrow things down? If she's telling the "truth" to LE, what is there to lose?

Luzer
08-12-2008, 01:31 PM
What about a consenting lie detector test? Yes, I know that it will not hold up in court, BUT we all know Casey's a liar; why don't they request a lie detector test to narrow things down? If she's telling the "truth" to LE, what is there to lose?

In Casey's case, I don't think a lie detector would show anything. She is a pathological, compulsive liar. She is so used to lying nothing would register.

babycat
08-12-2008, 03:48 PM
The problem is not that using truth serum would be discrimination, but it would be a gross violation of constitutional rights and it is scientifically unreliable. First we all have an absolute right against self incrimination, when we say questioning stops or we need the assistance of counsel questioning stops. It is clear that has happened here. Second we cannot waive this right unless it is done knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, meaning without coercion or impairment. We have the right to be assisted by counsel during questioning, so that we are protected from coercion, etc. Against all these rights there is the exclusionary rule any evidence that is obtained unconstitutionally is per se inadmissible and any evidence found as a result of an unconstitutional search/confessions is fruits of the poisonous tree and is also inadmissible.

We have these rules not to protect Casey, but to protect you and me. Innocent people stand accused of crimes more often than you think, look at the Illinois death penalty cases. Similarly, folks are frustrated with the attorney I know, but he took an oath when becoming an attorney that he would maintain the confidences and "preserve inviolate" the secrets of his client. Attorney-client privilege is serious business, any violation could put his ability to practice law in jeopardy but also seriously harm his reputation in the legal community. Not only that but how effective would it be to utilize lawyers if they were going to rat you out?

Yep.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Great post.

LI_Mom
08-12-2008, 04:00 PM
In Casey's case, I don't think a lie detector would show anything. She is a pathological, compulsive liar. She is so used to lying nothing would register.

I'd add....

if a person actually BELIEVES what they are saying is true... they can pass a lie detector.

I don't think anyone in the Anthony family is ready to face the real truth yet.

NighTillDawn
08-12-2008, 05:14 PM
Sodium Pentothal, TRUTH SERUM should be used in cases like Caylee's. Her mother should be placed on a gurney and given a good dose of truth serum.

This would save tax payers millions of dollars and allow the family to move on.

Unfortunately, the crooked lawyers would cry and whine, discrimination! :boohoo:

Don't we all wish that would be done. Could you imagine how much easier it would be to do something like that. I would like to hear the confession of every single person who claims they didn't do the killing. Of course the lawyers wouldn't have a job to do anymore.

LinetteH
08-12-2008, 05:27 PM
So what if someone was walking past her and just happened to have a needle filled with it. Then they just happened to slip and fall and she happened to get injected with it? Could we use it then? :whistle:

wallflower67
08-12-2008, 05:35 PM
As a pharmacist, I can attest (well, I wasn't there, so maybe that's not attesting!)that there really is no such thing as truth serum. People have been known to make up all kinds of things that are false when under the influence of drugs. same with hypnosis. It's just not reliable.

passionflower
08-12-2008, 06:19 PM
waterboarding?

drip~drop
08-12-2008, 07:51 PM
Sodium Pentothal, TRUTH SERUM should be used in cases like Caylee's. Her mother should be placed on a gurney and given a good dose of truth serum.

This would save tax payers millions of dollars and allow the family to move on.

Unfortunately, the crooked lawyers would cry and whine, discrimination! :boohoo:

Yup. That's what I suggested 7-8 weeks ago. Too bad LE can't just force it upon her sorry self.:mad:

What ticks me off is it seems that caylees rights are less then her mothers.:mad:
moo

MistyM
08-12-2008, 08:49 PM
waterboarding?


no doubt! what is that?

i think it WOULD be interesting to see how she would do on a lie detector test. just because she is such a compulsive liar.

Bruce's_Mom
08-12-2008, 09:06 PM
I first want to say that this is not directed at anyone specifically, I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and is entitled to express it.

It makes me extremely sad that in this day and age people value our constitutional system so little that they would be willing to water board, drug, or lord knows what else a person simply because they are an accused killer. What next ban defendants from presenting evidence on their own behalf? Maybe we should not allow them to have attorneys or maybe even try them in secret courts where there are no rules of evidence, just like terrorists?

Let’s consider the rights we have under our constitution. We have the right to be secure in our homes and be protected from unreasonable and warrantless searches of them, with some narrow exceptions. We have the right to not incriminate ourselves. We have the right to counsel, to be charged without delay of the crimes we are accused of, to confront our accusers and present evidence in our own defense. We have the right to a speedy and public trial and the right not to be punished in cruel ways. These rights our, our only protections against police/state misconduct, without them we may as well live in the Stalinist Soviet Union or one of those nice totalitarian Muslim states in the middle east we are so fond of demonizing these days. If you were arrested tomorrow and accused of a crime, which of those rights would you give up?

Maybe you answered that you would give up any of those rights, because if you were innocent it would not matter? My guess is that back in 1989 Jeff Deskovic thought the same. When his high school classmate was found raped and murdered that November he was only 16. Naturally, he was a good suspect, his emotions seemed inappropriate, LE just thought he was shady, after all he was late to school the day of the murder and he lied about what he had been doing. To clear his name he volunteered to take a polygraph. When he went to take the polygraph they gave him coffee all day but no food, was denied access to a restroom, and in between polygraph sessions he was interrogated by LE. They denied him access to a lawyer and grilled him for 6 hours. Eventually he failed the polygraph and “confessed” in order to use the restroom. The trial was a quick one; he had confessed, so no need to look at all the evidence? He was convicted of 1st degree murder and rape and told that at 16 he would never leave prison. In 2006 biological evidence proved he was not the rapist and not the killer, moreover it proved who the killer was. On September 20, 2006, Jeff Deskovic was released from prison when his conviction was overturned. Following an apology from the assistant district attorney, the court dismissed Deskovic's indictment on the grounds of actual innocence on November 2, 2006, but he will never get those 15.5 years of his life back and he will never be the same.

I am not defending Casey’s behavior in any way or suggesting that she could be innocent. I am just saying our constitution protects us all, there are compelling reasons it is the way it is and the trend we have going in our society to completely disregard it is scary. It is a fine line we walk when we disregard these things.

babycat
08-13-2008, 09:27 AM
I first want to say that this is not directed at anyone specifically, I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and is entitled to express it.

It makes me extremely sad that in this day and age people value our constitutional system so little that they would be willing to water board, drug, or lord knows what else a person simply because they are an accused killer. What next ban defendants from presenting evidence on their own behalf? Maybe we should not allow them to have attorneys or maybe even try them in secret courts where there are no rules of evidence, just like terrorists?

Let’s consider the rights we have under our constitution. We have the right to be secure in our homes and be protected from unreasonable and warrantless searches of them, with some narrow exceptions. We have the right to not incriminate ourselves. We have the right to counsel, to be charged without delay of the crimes we are accused of, to confront our accusers and present evidence in our own defense. We have the right to a speedy and public trial and the right not to be punished in cruel ways. These rights our, our only protections against police/state misconduct, without them we may as well live in the Stalinist Soviet Union or one of those nice totalitarian Muslim states in the middle east we are so fond of demonizing these days. If you were arrested tomorrow and accused of a crime, which of those rights would you give up?

Maybe you answered that you would give up any of those rights, because if you were innocent it would not matter? My guess is that back in 1989 Jeff Deskovic thought the same. When his high school classmate was found raped and murdered that November he was only 16. Naturally, he was a good suspect, his emotions seemed inappropriate, LE just thought he was shady, after all he was late to school the day of the murder and he lied about what he had been doing. To clear his name he volunteered to take a polygraph. When he went to take the polygraph they gave him coffee all day but no food, was denied access to a restroom, and in between polygraph sessions he was interrogated by LE. They denied him access to a lawyer and grilled him for 6 hours. Eventually he failed the polygraph and “confessed” in order to use the restroom. The trial was a quick one; he had confessed, so no need to look at all the evidence? He was convicted of 1st degree murder and rape and told that at 16 he would never leave prison. In 2006 biological evidence proved he was not the rapist and not the killer, moreover it proved who the killer was. On September 20, 2006, Jeff Deskovic was released from prison when his conviction was overturned. Following an apology from the assistant district attorney, the court dismissed Deskovic's indictment on the grounds of actual innocence on November 2, 2006, but he will never get those 15.5 years of his life back and he will never be the same.

I am not defending Casey’s behavior in any way or suggesting that she could be innocent. I am just saying our constitution protects us all, there are compelling reasons it is the way it is and the trend we have going in our society to completely disregard it is scary. It is a fine line we walk when we disregard these things.

Again, great post.

Also, again, I'll state for people who keep thinking that truth serum actually makes you TELL THE TRUTH, that is a fallacy. It is a psychoactive drug. It can (and often does) cause hallucinations, and sometimes delusions.

Why, WHY would be inject someone with a drug,then ask then the truth. We certainly wouldn't just believe someone who was high at face value if we picked them up off the street.

Remember, LSD was once touted as a "truth serum" too. The U.S. hasn't done any testing on truth serums since the cold war, I think.

MistyM
08-16-2008, 06:59 PM
i'm pretty sure if they forced casey to do any of these things we would all be freaked out and demand it not happen. mostly i think saying we'd like to see her under truth serum is wishful thinking. you just want to get to the truth and a 'serum' is a fantasy.

i wouldn't be too alarmed at what people say. i'd like to see my ex boyfriend strung up by his toes, but i would never actually do it.

don't be sad. it's no big deal to dream of torturing this chick who probably killed her kid to get the truth.

NighTillDawn
08-16-2008, 07:05 PM
i'm pretty sure if they forced casey to do any of these things we would all be freaked out and demand it not happen. mostly i think saying we'd like to see her under truth serum is wishful thinking. you just want to get to the truth and a 'serum' is a fantasy.

i wouldn't be too alarmed at what people say. i'd like to see my ex boyfriend strung up by his toes, but i would never actually do it.

don't be sad. it's no big deal to dream of torturing this chick who probably killed her kid to get the truth.

Has truth serum ever been done before, and if it has, what were the results?

QuickAttack
08-16-2008, 07:12 PM
Sodium Pentothal, TRUTH SERUM should be used in cases like Caylee's. Her mother should be placed on a gurney and given a good dose of truth serum.

This would save tax payers millions of dollars and allow the family to move on.

Unfortunately, the crooked lawyers would cry and whine, discrimination! :boohoo:

Sorry. Constitutional rights extend to even lowlifes like Casey.

Luzer
08-16-2008, 07:47 PM
I went to Wikipedia to see if any documented cases were listed for the "truth serum".

Interesting to note, the article states that a practiced liar would still be able to lie if sodium pentathol were injected.

It also says that sodium thiopental (pentathol) is used as the first part of the lethal injection process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_pentothal

Good article to read.

technicalconfusion
08-17-2008, 01:36 PM
I first want to say that this is not directed at anyone specifically, I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and is entitled to express it.

It makes me extremely sad that in this day and age people value our constitutional system so little that they would be willing to water board, drug, or lord knows what else a person simply because they are an accused killer. What next ban defendants from presenting evidence on their own behalf? Maybe we should not allow them to have attorneys or maybe even try them in secret courts where there are no rules of evidence, just like terrorists?



While I do agree with you for the most part: what about Caylee's rights? That's what bugs me the most - the victims of crimes have their rights walked
all over.

wallflower67
08-17-2008, 07:44 PM
While I do agree with you for the most part: what about Caylee's rights? That's what bugs me the most - the victims of crimes have their rights walked
all over.

Unfortunately, that's the very definition of being a victim...having your rights stripped. And frankly, IMO, rape and murder victims can never have true justice done...because no one can undo those things. You can put to death a murderer, but that won't bring the victim back. It might make society safer, of course.

My rapist died over a year ago (23 years after the crime...unprosecuted because of my own stupidity). I didn't really feel better. That experience of having been raped has become a part of me. You never get over it. You just go on. With therapy, my life has turned out rather nicely, I think!

I do think Casey killed her daughter, but if she didn't do it, I'd feel horrible if she wasted decades in jail.