[HPforGrownups] Re: OOP - Veritaserum

[Robert A. Rosenberg]

No: HPFGUIDX 70497

At 21:37 +0000 on 07/02/2003, jsmithqwert wrote about [HPforGrownups] 
Re: OOP - Veritaserum:

>Additionally, Snape has told us that there are strict ministry
>guidelines surrounding the use of veritaserum.  IMHO, the ministry
>has mandated that it violates a person's rights to forcibly
>administer veritaserum.  Certainly, in the muggle judicial system of
>any free democracy, veritaserum would be prohibited as a means of
>self-incrimination.

As the US Fifth Amendment (as in "Taking the Fifth" and "Waving your 
Fifth Amendment Rights") against Self-Incrimination shows there is a 
difference between being forced to make Self-Incriminating Testimony 
and being prohibited from making the same Self-Incriminating 
Testimony.

IOW: You can refuse to testify under the claim/assumption that to 
reply would amount to Self-Incriminating Testimony, you can be 
granted immunity for anything that is part of the Self-Incriminating 
Testimony, or you can wave your right to stand silent and give 
Self-Incriminating Testimony if you feel that your other Testimony 
will remove/negate the Self-Incriminating aspect of the Testimony.

As I noted in a separate thread on this same issue, the ban on forcibly
administered Veritaserum does not imply that it can not be 
voluntarily administered. Unless there is a legal reason that 
precludes acceptance of testimony given under the influence of 
Veritaserum (such as its results can not be relied on since the 
Veritaserum Potion can be "Beat"), an offer to testify under its 
influence should be permitted since its used is a waving of your 
right against Self-Incrimination.

At 00:07 +0000 on 07/03/2003, pk_dawson wrote about [HPforGrownups] 
Re: OOP - Veritaserum:

>But maybe this is something of a Flint, because then why wasn't it used at
>the Death Eater trials we saw in GoF? *shrug* Dumbledore certainly
>didn't seem to doubt its effectiveness, even on a powerful dark wizard
>like Crouch.


There is a difference between its being used involuntarily in a Trial 
(where the Defendant is [supposed] to be regarded as innocent and the 
prosecution has to prove guilt) and being used involuntarily in an 
Interrogation being conducted under "War Time" Rules (which is the 
case of its use on Crouch).


At 00:16 +0000 07/04/2003, Steve wrote about [HPforGrownups] Re: OOP 
- Veritaserum:
>bboy_mn:
>
>Let me pose a counter question; why don't muggle courts force people
>accused of a crimes to take truth serum? Muggles do have several drugs
>that function as truth serum.
>
>First it's an invasion of rights and privacy, remember that the
>foundation of democratic law has it's origins in English Common Law.
>So you can't be compelled to give testimony against yourself. It's not
>up to you to prove your innocents; it's up the them to prove your
>guilt. Plus, Harry is a minor; they certainly can't force a minor to
>take truth serum without his permission and the permission of his
>guardians. Considering who Harry's guardians are, it's doubtful they
>would ever get any of the in a wizard's courtroom.
>
>During the trial Dumbledore (I think) make reference to the Wizard
>Charter of Rights, so wizards do have some rights under the law.
>

You are still looking at the wrong question. It is not why the 
testimony under involuntarily administered Veritaserum if forbidden 
(we know why as your stated). It is why the testimony under 
voluntarily administered Veritaserum should be forbidden. In the 
later case, you are waving your right to not be compelled to testify 
under the influence of Veritaserum.

As to the Minor/Permission issue, Dumbledore can grant it under the 
rule of Loco Parentis ([Sp?] - "In Lieu of Parents" - The right of a 
Temporary "Responsible Adult" such as a Teacher to act as a 
Parent/Guardian when exercising responsibility for the well-being of 
the child).

>bboy_mn

--

Bob Rosenberg