X-Post: Things that Scare you in the Wizard World.

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 105857

The group member 'Udder_Pen_Dragon' posted this in the Off-Topic
group. It starts with a comment about a Fan Fiction he/she wrote that
involves the used of Veritaserum, but it ends with a comment about the
wizard world that I thought was sufficiently On-Topic and interesting
to be discussed here.

Below, you will find Udder_Pen_Dragon's orginal comment and my reply.
In my reply, I have focused on the wizard world and not addresses his
fan fiction beyond it's relevance to the books and the wizard world
itself.

Deals with-
ethics
Veritaserum, use of
Wizard's court and law
Wizard's Bill of Rights
Ministry authority
Percy (briefly)

Hopefully, the Mods will forgive me if I have overstepped my bounds.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From:  udder_pen_dragon <udderpd at y...>
Date:  Mon Jul 12, 2004  11:10 am
Subject: The Wizard World NOT a nice place
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/23172

I was Writing an answer to a review of one of my stories on FF.net . I
had just had DM taken into custody on the Veritaserum extracted word
of LM after the battle in the MoM and I was told that I can't do that.

This got me thinking and now I come to the point.

The MoM sent Sirius to Azkaban for life without a trial, probably
without even talking to him.

Fudge had Barty Crouch effectively murdered (Dementors Kiss) without
even speaking to him then spent a year denying the return of
Voldemort. So what did Dumbledore say about it, "now he can't
testify." There was no question as to whether it was within Fudge's
authority to do this, ergo I assume that it is within his remit.

There are possibly others but these two will do, it's just that I find
this a bit scary.


TTFN Udder PenDragon

[--Below is my response minus quotes from the post above--]

Asian_lovr2:

I hear you asking several question, and I'm not sure which you intend
for us to respond to.

First, whether it is ethical or legal to use Veritaserum when
questioning criminal suspects?

We must remember that we have similar means available to us as
muggles. We have Sodium Pentothal better know as Truth Serum. We have
Lie Detector Machines. Yet the government is not allowed to use them
against suspects. First and foremost because it is a violation of
human rights.

In the US, and I assume under precedents in English Common Law, it is
the job of the government to prove we are guilty, not our job to prove
we are innocent. Also, by US Law and the Constitution, a suspect can
not be compelled to give testimony against himself.

The next problem is that these methods are not reliable. Lie Detectors
can be fooled by people who have no sense of right and wrong. A lie
only registers if you feel a certain amount of emotional guilt about
telling a lie.

In addition, truth and falsehoods are subjective. Truth, sadly, is not
alway absolute. Illustration-

Question: Have you ever had sex with someone who was underage?

This is very much like the question, 'have you stopped beating your
wife?' To say 'Yes', implies that you were beating her but quit. To
say 'No' implies that you are still beating her.

Back to my actual question. In the context of a criminal
investigation, to say 'Yes' implies that you are quilty of a sex
crime. However, if you were 15 and were with a girl who was 15, then
to say 'No' is a lie. Lie Detector Machines don't allow room for
explanation or for fine distinctions.

In addition, and as could be the case with Veritaserum, if a person
believes something to be true, even though in reality it was false,
the Veritaserum, would register the /belief/ and not the absolute
truth. This is also true with muggle truth serum and lie detector
machines. (And, Fudge implies as much in the 'Parting of the Ways'.)

We know that the used of Veritaserum is strickly regulated by the
Ministry of Magic (per Snape), and that implies by wizard's law, and
we also know, thanks to Dumbledore, that there is an equivalent of a
Wizard's Bill of Rights. Therefore, we can assume that the Ministry
has definite restrictions on the extent to which it can use
Veritaserum. (and restrictions on the evidence thereby obtained)

Side Note: The thing I found the most frightening about the Wizengamot
court, is the assumption that the Court is a neutral unbiased advocate
for justice and truth. That would by extension imply that the court is
the advocate of the accused and is there to assure that the accused is
given a fair and unbiased trial. 

Well, we see how that belief is 'fairytale' in the extreme. I was
extremely bothered by the fact that the accused was not /required/ to
have his own personal truly neutral advocate available to insure that
the trial was indeed fair, and that his rights truly were protected.
Imagine, Harry's hearing if Dumbledore has not been there to protect
him? That is truly scary.

As far as Fudge/The Minister and his authority, I think they are
operating under the same principle that guides the Wizard's Court as
described in the side note above. Since the Minister is a
representative of the people, by extension, he is looking out for the
best interests of the people, and should have authority to act in that
best interest. In a perfect world that might work, but in a world of
power, corruption, greed, ego, insecurity, and desire, we can easily
see how hopelessly flawed the system is.

In another side note, I will point out that this widely held belief
that the government is truly an advocate of the people and is looking
out for the best interest of the citizens, may be (part of) the reason
why Percy so readily sided with Fudge in the matter of Voldemort's
return. He could have been sway by youthful idealism and faith in the
system.

And, you are right, it is a bit scary.

Steve/asian_lovr2