Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
- Latest Climate News
- “Climate dread is everywhere”
- “The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier.’”
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- Fossil Fuels Cause Fungus
- Prophets Of Doom
- The Green New Deal Lives On
- Mission Accomplished!
Recent Comments
- Bob G on “Earlier Than Usual”
- John Francis on “Earlier Than Usual”
- John Francis on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Terry Shipman on “Earlier Than Usual”
- arn on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Gordon Vigurs on “Earlier Than Usual”
- conrad ziefle on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Bob G on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Gamecock on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Gamecock on “Earlier Than Usual”
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
It’s been ages since I was near criminal law, but the idea of this makes me nervous. Very disturbing 5th Am implications, as the article notes. Yes, you may waive your 5th Am right not to testify, but that isn’t carte blanche to open the floodgates. And once you’re under the influence of a mind-altering drug, you are by definition no longer competent to make any kind of decision on what you might choose to say or not. Further, anything you testify to is then subject to cross-examination, and a defendant might start talking about matters he otherwise would not have, if testifying completely voluntarily and not under the influence.
This is not a question of “technicalities,” such as a critical piece of evidence being thrown out because Deputy Fife noted the wrong time in the Evidence Locker logbook, this is something that cuts right to the heart of Constitutional protections, which are getting whittled at pretty hard lately, and I just can’t see the safe (Constitutionally speaking) use of this without many many layers of judicial protection and review, and at the very least, granting the defendant the final call on what is actually to be allowed into evidence.
Remember, folks, it’s SUPPOSED to be hard to get a criminal conviction.
Agreed Penny. But since Obama and his cronies have been whittling away at Constitutional rights, let them be the first to undergo this type of interrogation and proclaim they have the very rights they’re trying to overthrow.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
There is no such thing as a truth serum.