Posted by: admin in Law on March 13th, 2013

Judge William Sylvester ruled that James Holmes is to be subject to a “narcoanalytic interview” with the use of a “truth serum” if he decides to plead not guilty by reason of insanity. Legal experts question the ethics and possible legal implications of the Judge’s ruling regarding the use of an undisclosed drug to make the suspect talk.

James Holmes went on a killing spree in a Colorado theatre premiering the last instalment of the “Batman” trilogy, which killed many and is considered a significant catalyst of the US gun ban initiative. Legal professionals question the effectiveness of the narcoanalytic interview, stating that the method will not reveal his state of mind at the time of his shooting.

Legal experts see Judge Sylvester’s decision as coming from an analysis that James Holmes was found by police to have submitted himself willingly after his shooting spree and was calm the entire time. During his prosecution, medical professionals considered him medically “calm” throughout the hearings that proceed until this date.

However, the experts say that it would be a bad idea because under the US Fifth Amendment, all citizens have the right to remain silent. The narcoanalytic interrogation would breach the amendment by having the suspect “talk” under an artificial influence.

Medical professionals also say that the method was not a “royal road to the truth” because the influence of most “truth serums” allow patients to be susceptible to “outside suggestion”, meaning they can own up to anything that questioners ask.

Source: Guardian

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.