Asymmetrical Information

Hmmm. Didn't they have a foolproof lie detector in the original Star Trek TV show? Put your hand on a glowing plate, tell a lie and an alarm would go off.

Isn't that essentially the same thing?

They handled it pretty well in Star Trek. They used it in court, but I'm sure the police had one at HQ. If the suspect said that they were innocent then they could tell their story while palming the plate.

James

OK, the question:

Here's a thought experiment: suppose this guy actually had a foolproof, nonintrusive way of determining if a suspect in a crime were telling the truth:

What restrictions would need to be placed on its use?

Would we need courts and juries (as we know them) any longer?

How could it be abused?

Is there a downside to a 100% reliable way of catching criminals?

First, what is truth? But setting aside my probable misspelling of "Roshomon", we would still need courts, since any sentence would involve applying both the "facts", as determined by the truth machine, and the law.

Restrictions on use? Presumably the unreasonable search and seizure rules would apply. For example, why can't the police spend five minutes looking through my car after a traffic stop? It takes that long to radio in my license info, and we are all just standing around. No harm, right?

So, even if the method was fully portable and non-intrusive, I expect (hope!) there would be a "probable cause" restriction.

How could it be abused? By the police, or by private owners, like dating services, or prospective employers? This truth machine would provide great grist for the Hollywood screenplay mill.

This idea was explored in a very good science fiction novel, James Halperin's The Truth Machine.

He postulated that the fifth amendment would be overturned, and refusal to submit to questioning with the truth machine would be treated as an admission of guilt. It's been a while since I read it, but I believe that he also postulated that people would be required to answer a question along the lines of, 'Have you committed a crime for which you have not been punished' before using most public services like flying or entering government buildings.

Tom - why would you want probable cause restrictions to apply, if in fact the machine were 100% reliable? If the machine were incapable of convicting an innocent person, wouldn't justice be served best by finding the guilty?

I'm not saying I necessarily believe that, but I think that it is a more difficult question than you seem to.

NOT being able to always discern when someone is telling the truth has advantages, for starters, it tends to discourage legislation on activities where the government ought not be invading (privacy issues), in part because the burden of proof would be too high. The constitution doesn't guarantee a 'right' to privacy but I think a fair argument can be made that one is derived from "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness."

The greatest failing I see with this kind of truth device, were it possible, is that it makes thought-policing feasible. Don't want people thinking a particular way? Make it illegal, then force them to tell the truth: Do you love Big Brother, Winston? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice, please place your hand here...

The instant you drop probable cause just because the device never lies, you've opened Pandora's Box with a half-stick of dynamite. There's no way that puppy will ever be closed again.

Anony-mouse-
Agreed; that is the downside. The upside is, you would never convict an innocent person, and almost everyone who commits a crime would be caught, and would know it in advance. This would greatly reduce the crimes committed. That's a pretty good upside. I think that weighing the two is pretty difficult.

It would certainly put pressure on the government to adjust the legal system to the realities of the public. If everyone who used drugs or hired prostitutes was caught and punished, I think there would be a lot of pressure to change those laws.

That's the optimistic view, anyway. I tend to believe that, like any other device with the potential to confer power, this one would be abused.

Think in terms of a frog slow-boil, then start asking, how could a device that always catches the right person be used as an ideological construct for abridging civil liberties? -- and see how far you get. Personally, I tend to think that a 1984-esque scenario is (a) theoretically possible in a surprisingly short time span and (b) a downside that always outweighs the minimization of criminal activity.

I just realized that Minority Report can be viewed as an allegory of the Bush doctrine of preemption. . . .

Comments are Closed.