Skip to main content

View Diary: No Fifth Amendment for Aurora Shooter - Judge Approves 'Narcoanalytic Interview' Using 'Truth Serum' (182 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's what I don't get. (4+ / 0-)
    The defense attorney needs to fight this tooth and nail.
    If the defense attorney went ahead and entered an insanity plea then the judge will order a narcoanalytic interview to try and prove the opposite.

    What's the point? Just put the guy away. Getting him some help would be nice. But he'll still be locked up tight until the day he dies.

    Why waste the time and money for a death penalty?

    "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

    by markthshark on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 07:55:29 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Because the "Model" penal system we created (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      markthshark, The Jester

      is dead.

      It was supposed to be what Combined REHABILITATION and Retributivism.

      Don't see much of the former anymore.

      •  I see a big waste of taxpayer money too... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ClevelandAttorney, Paul1a, The Jester

        And if what he says while under the influence is not admissible anyway -- then why waste the time and money to put the guy through it?

        There's always a risk of death during one of these procedures, right?

        "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

        by markthshark on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 08:05:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Good Point (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Paul1a, The Jester

          Not a Doctor, I don't know.

          Not a criminal lawyer (except for friends) but as someone who cares about Justice this just is the erosion of the Constitution to me.

          Just like how everyone will let an officer search their car (they have no right to) but then the Officer will imply something must be wrong. That's a right we've all but lost.

          There's a website devoted solely to that (rights like that and how we are slowly giving them away). I say no (well hasn't happened but would). Otherwise all of the sudden we wake up and search and seizure is so common it's gone.

          For how many years have we had "truth syrums". How many capital murder trials, or homicide? How many pleading insanity? Never needed to before.

          I really don't get what this implies either. Usually I thought a Psychologist/Psychiatrist for the Prosecutor conducts interviews. Then the Prosecutors watch through double glass, and they go on what their expert says.

          This implies the Prosecutor is asking questions? I would imagine the Defense Counsel have no huge uproar because they think it will help. But, as an Attorney you should respect the precedent you create. Granted, your duty is to your client first, but if he is insane, he's insane.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site