on veritaserum and being paranoid and suspicious

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 126679


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, -p <captivity at g...> wrote:
> 
> Is Veritaserum more or less reliable than Sodium Pentathol?  Am I
> wrong to think that it is a cure-all for situations in which one 
> party or another is not believed to be telling the truth?  ... why 
> wasn't anyone willing to administer Veritaserum to ensure the truth?
> 

bboyminn:

I won't go into detail about Veritaserum because it's been cover
before ...see...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/123764
Date:  Wed Feb 2, 2005  3:22 pm
Subject:  Veritaserum RANT

Instead, let me put this question to you, you ask why the wizard world
doesn't use artificial truth-telling devices (potions, spells,
contraptions,...), but now ask yourself why don't we use them in the
real world? Why don't we force every suspect to take Sodium Pentathol
and be done with it? We could save ourselves a lot of money on long
drawn out trials and appeal processes. 

Why because it is a violation of basic human rights? 

Some people in real life will insist on being questioned while
connected to a lie detector machine in order to prove the truth of
their words, but all it really proves is that they either have no
stress response to lying, or the truly believe the lies they are
telling. Though there is always a chance that they are really telling
the truth.

True is not absolute; it is greatly colored by perspective and
preception. 

Harry at one time believed Sirius killed his parent, that is a truth
because believes it to be true, but as we later find out, it is a
/false/ truth.

> -P (captivity) continues:
>
> The use of the serum on Crouch Jr makes me think that it is a 
> trusted method.  

bboyminn:

Using Veritaserum on Crouch!Moody was probably unethical and likely
violated some aspect of the law, however, in such an extreme situation
it probably would have been overlooked.

> -P (captivity) continues:
>
> Umbridge's willingness to use it on Harry also  makes me curious as 
> to why the kids never dream of using it on character's whom
> they feel untrustworthy.
> 

bboyminn:

Umbridge's actions were clearly against the law, and a gross voilation
of human rights. She was not acting under an emergency life-and-death
stituation. She was merely on a fishing expedition for information.
I'm sure she felt her high position of power in the Ministry would
insulate her from any legal or political fallout from her actions, but
that in no way erases the wrongness of actions.

As to Harry and Friends using it, this is a substance whose possession
and use are strictly controlled by the Ministry of Magic. Snape's
description makes brewing it sound like a long complex process. While
Snape, a teacher and Master Potions maker, might be able to get away
with brewing up a batch, for Harry to do so would have been
unquestionably against the law (in my interpretation).

> -P (captivity) continues:

> ... I desired to choke some down Winky's throat at the World Cup 
> ....  Her behavior seemed so incongruous that ... someone ... should
> have been suspicious .... I can see ... those surrounding Crouch Sr 
> to trust him unconditionally - and his show of anger was tell-tale 
> of something suspicious to all parties  involved I believe...
> 
> p

bboyminn:

Winky was in a situation where she knew she was in serious legal
trouble, but also in deep trouble with her Master, Crouch. That puts
her in a very very high stress situation, and could easily have seemed
a justification for her odd behavior and emotions.

Crouch on the other hand doesn't seem like he is ever a very pleasant
person, so I think expressions of anger on his part are casually
accepted by those who work with him. Notice Crouch's blunt and hostile
reactions toward Harry/Ron/Hermione before Winky is discovered. It
seems commonly accepted that he is just not a pleasant guy.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn