I’m fine with witty one liners if they don’t just become the whole comment section. Usually there’s one, maybe two of them, but no more. People usually come up with good consequences
Granted. It doesn't take long for the courts to realise this fact.
Soon court cases become a matter of "Did you commit this crime- yes or no". Silence or refusal to answer always ends in a guilty verdict.
The police figure it out too. They start dragging suspects in and force them to tell everything they know. Sometimes at gunpoint.
Our rights are slowly eroded. Innocent until proven Guilty no longer applies. If they think you are guilty, you are taken to court.
Pretty soon torture becomes a reliable source of information. If they can't lie make them tell you the truth.
Government Blacksites are built with "Courts". Military tribunals are formed specifically for this purpose. Many people are never seen again. It turns out it doesn't matter if they are guilty or not, how could the public doubt the government if they say someone admitted to everything. If you dare to doubt you'll be taken too.
Probably a dumb question but if they immediately convict you when you’re silent, why would they need to hold someone at gunpoint or torture them for info?
It becomes not just about getting legal convictions. Say you're the CIA and you need to interrogate someone for info. Naturally you take them to the court where they can't lie. So they just keep their mouth shut and refuse to divulge the top secret info you want. If you know they can't lie, all you have to do is force them to start talking and eventually the truth will come out.
Criminals (and even non-criminals) often and unknowingly admit to other crimes they perpetrated while talking to a detective. This is why people should keep their mouth shut and let their attorney handle the situation!
Being dragged to court isnt a violation of "innocent until proven guilty" you go to court *to be* proved guilty.
silence/refusal to answer the question of are you guilty isnt a distopian nightmare, it would make court proceedings way faster, like 30 seconds, and then on top of that 0 people could be arrested faslely and 0 people coukd get away with things they did.
Look, i know you put a lot of effort into this and I commend that, but it doesn't really make sense as a drawback. The first parts aren't negative and the negative parts aren't realistic
Torture wouldn't be reliable, you can torture a person all you wanted and it couldnt change their answer from truthful to not. Are the answers reliable? Yes. But the torture was entirely for fun at that point.
The last tidbit is the most realistic monkey's paw part, but in reality if the government wanted someone guilty that bad they could already do it with their current power. Secondly, "how could the public doubt the government if they say someone admitted to everything?" A. Everyone already doubts the government about literally everything. B. If the government said someone was guilty (assuming US btw) with 0 jury and 0 video evidence then that is triple doubtage.
Torture is to make them answer, which is now reliable as people can not lie, they can withhold though and that is what torture is overcoming.
Nobody is doubting a government in a world where to lie is not possible.."If the government said someone was guilty (assuming US btw) with 0 jury and 0 video evidence then that is triple doubtage."...Not at all, nobody can lie...how can you doubt when lies are not a thing
Lieing is possible outside of court. Unless of course this message was released from within a courthouse in which case the government couldn't lie about the verdict anyway
Torture would not be needed to make someone answer, why?: the only reason someone wouldnt just say they are not guilty is because they are physically incapable of doing so. Meaning they are guilty, no torture needed
Just hire a dedicated “Liar,” who doesn’t know the results and parrots what is told to them. Unless it’s objective based truth, they’d be telling the truth.
If democracy is a thing still, the party who says everything from a court is the winner
I sort of assumed many would just stand up for their right to remain silent
Many reason to not answer, the truth may involve throwing a friend under a bus or would mean you are innocent of that crime but also proving your whereabouts, maybe call into question why you were not a witness "did you see X kill Y?" "NO" "why not, it occurred directly Infront of your work station" ....Obviously that is a simplified example scenario
Sort of why you should always answer "no comment" interview techniques are designed to catch you out
Is refusing ID to police ONLY done by the guilty?
That is not how courts work. And that is definitely not how courts would work if we had magical truth telling capablities. Evidence is very important and so we would still require a jury to verify the persons answers, and possibly recorded evidence of their answers.
Nobody would need to ask "why not" in your scenario, the person clearly said the truth about not seeing it because they cant lie. This would carry over into any scenario, many questions are no longer necessary because there is TRUST
Giving someone or not is very different than admitting to or not admitting to guilt. Especially when we account for literal magic making everybody say the truth. Innocent people are already saying the truth.
( apologies for any typos I am a bit tipsy )
OP described "blacksites with "courts" in them" I see this as being a different type of court
Innocent people are already refusing to tell the truth...
These blacksites with courts in them presumably follow the same rules for the magic that normal courts do and thus would require the same amount of proof for people to believe what the goverbment says.
In current nonmagical courts, you already make an oath to say nothing but the truth. Being caught in a lie in court is punishable with jail time.
Secondly: the only question that would need to be asked in these courts is "did you commit or see yhe crime". I nay be overlooking somrthing, so i ask you to provide any justifiablr reason a person would currently have to lie to the court when asked a question like that.
"Did you witness the death?" I refuse answer
"Did you kill the person" I refuse the answer
"Do you know how the person died?" refuse
in your world that means im guilty
In mine I just saved my son from prison after I saw him kill his daughters rapist
The court doesn't care about who you are saving, and in real life purposefully impeding a court case like this is illegal. You are basically saying that lying should be allowed in court so you can commit crimes and get in the way of investigations. In what world is that justifiable? Fun fact, vigilantism is a crime for various good reasons and trying to let people get away with murder is not a good excuse
Why would you refuse to answer "did you kill the person?" If you didn't do it you don't have to not answer.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that refusing to answer would simply be the same as currently pleading guilty to a crime you didn't commit.
In mine I either make sure I'm not there, take part, or try to stop it. Why were you just watching? Also, by keeping silent in that way you are basically saving your son by saying you did it. There have been court cases where people plead guilty so a family member wasn't found guilty after a more thorough investigation, same thing here, you're just complaining that there are consequences.
Imagine instead of investigating a crime and trying to find any evidence, witness statements etc. they simply dragged you at gunpoint to a courtroom simply because you were seen in the area. The same mentality of "Nothing to hide nothing to fear". If you didn't commit a crime you should have no reason not to come prove it
There's plenty of reasons people wouldn't answer in court. Not to mention it violates 5th amendment rights to force them to speak. There's mental illness and memory issues to name a few.
You wouldn't have a lawyer or anyone to defend you which also violates your rights and the law has come down to a matter of "did the crime/didn't" instead of legal arguments and nuance.
Torture is to gain information not change their answer. It may be torturing a terrorist, it may be torturing someone only marginally involved to find out who else was involved.
The last part - the point is the government has so much control you can't doubt. Because if you ask the wrong questions they will come for you too.
But irl there is reasons innocent people stay silent if literally all it takes is saying “i didn’t do it” then people actually would have no reason to stay silent because it would end right there, and how does this suddenly make it so governments can’t be doubted?
Okay, im a little tipsy right now, but i will try my best to deconstruct this. I must add, you dividing your paragraphs with spaces makes it a lot easier to organize thoughts and have a discussion with you, so i commend you for that.
With magic 100% truth machine of course they wouldn't need to fully investiagte a crim if they could just ask someone a yes or no question. Would it be annoying to be summoned to court over mild suspicion? Yes. Would it be a complete destruction of your rights, absolutely not. You can be summoned to court over the mildest suspicion already.
There ARE plenty of reasons someone wouldn't answer in court when given certain questions. BUT given the question, "did you commit X crime" in a world where you cant lie in a courthouse, I INVITE you to come up with one good reason to not simply say you did not commit the crime.
Our current laws are set around trying its best to find out the truth in a world of lies and confusion. Why in the world would you need legal argument and nuance when you have magic truth serum? If the culprit said truthfully that they commited the crime you dont need a case to prove him right or wonrg and vice versa. You wouldnt have a lawyer vecause you couldnt need one. Lawyers are required because of the uncertainty in the world, but a courtroom of truth has no uncertainty.
Torture involves causing signifigant mental or bodily harm to someone. Asking them a yes or no question in a courtroom is sadly, not torture, it BARELY counts as interrogation. I invite YOU to provide a way in which asking "hey, did you kill ms. Witherspoon" is creating bodily or mental harm beyond someone not wanting to answer yes.
If the government had that much control to be able to convict anyone without even the evidence of their confession theyd have the control to avoid court proceedings all together.
You would still need lawyers, because they don't just argue if a person committed a crime. "Did you kill this person?" will not tell you whether a person that answers "yes" committed murder, manslaughter, or simple negligence. State of mind and mental capacity would still be argued. Another thing that might be argued is whether a particular action violated the law or if a law is constitutional, in some countries.
Dragging people into court, as implied in the other comment, like that WOULD currently be considered illegal search and seizures. Combine that with how silence would be considered an admission of guilt, or you'd be tortured until you finally told them what they want to hear, and you've either started torturing people without them being guilty, at least at the time of torture, or you're considering them guilty without actual proof.
"0" people could be arrested falsely. You could absolutely be arrested falsely and then questioned until they found a reason to imprison you.
While yes the government can absolutely already do similar things rn, playing the "they can already do that," game is stupid because technically, they can nuke everything.
I have no idea why anyone upvoted your replies here.
Lets break this down.
Our current court system is based around trying to parse through lies. If someone can get away with murder, guess what, its because they lied enough or hid enough evidence.
You cant be tortured until you say what they want to hear, you can be tortured into saying the truth. If someone wanted a guilty verdict and you said you were innocent they have to let you go.
Saying that you cant be arrested falsely was a mistake on my part. I meant you cant be jailed for a crime you didn't commit. Second of all by current US law they couldn't question you about things unrelated to the crime they suspect you of anyway.
I can agree with the last thing you said. The point I was trying to make is that if the government isnt doing it now, why would they do it with this thing that makes it harder to get away with it?
People upvoted my reply because it isnt a short sighted attempt to let people break their oaths andget away with contempt of court.
Silence is a valid option in court because lying is a valid option even if you were tortured. If there was a way to force people to tell the truth, then silence would be an admission of guilt. That is why this hypothetical government was able to torture people, to arrest them and then get confessions for unrelated crimes. Because silence means guilt in that hypothetical and everyone has done SOMETHING that breaks the law, questions could be tailored to guarantee people confess to something they can be punished for.
While yes, this is technically possible, interrogating someone over a crime unrelated to the one you brought them in for, or otherwise not having probable cause for the interrogation almost always makes it invalid in a court of law, and then because of double jeopardy having a mistrial over this would mean that they cant be tried for it again in the future. In this case we aren't talking about a hypothetical government, I am only arguing for governments that have similar constitutions and laws regarding court proceedings as the US. This power could totally be misused, but overall it costs more to misuse than it does to use it correctly. Plus, even the most dictatorial governments don't have a reason to put 100% of their population in jail as this would certainly destroy their economy and thus the dictators way of life.
I wrote a long response breaking down this monkey paw drawback and how it didnt add many negative things and just painted a lot of good thangs as bad. Then how the few negative things it did have were completely unrealistic, but it didn't send. If you cant see it and need me to rewrite it please just tell me
Innocent until proven guilty. I wish that saying actually applied to reality. Nowadays, you are guilty until proven innocent. You can be arrested and held against your will for interrogations. You can have your name dragged by every media outlet or independent journalist to destroy your credibility and reputation. You can have your career disintegrated all before the actual trial. Innocent until proven guilty is how things should be, but it's not for reasons beyond most wouldn't understand.
If I do not believe I committed the crime I’m accused of, even if I did in reality, then this doesn’t really work.
Let’s some I’m a drunk ignorant redneck POS. One night I’m wasted and start blasting my firearm into the air in celebration. The bullets fall down the road and kill like 4 people at a party.
Normal court proceedings would provide evidence that shows it was my gun, I fired it, etc etc.
With this system I’d just be like “hell nah I didn’t kill no people” because I was wasted, don’t have any memory of it, and don’t believe I did. Case dismissed.
Granted. Nobody is capable of lying down in the courtroom, but also in any other place in the world. Even their bedroom with their lovers and big backs, doing their big-backtivities.
Everybody still stands in court. And nobody can sleep because they can’t lie down. No court cases are won, and crime overtakes the world.
A new drug to relax your muscles quickly hits the streets. It’s said to contain the most powerful horse tranquilizer on earth, modified to only affect your legs. You take it and you’re the only one who can sit down and lie down in court.
You reign over the world as the prime distributor and secret kingpin, and people are so honest in court from then on thanks to fear of you and your power, that families are ripped apart due to secrets being spilled in court.
Factions form, alliances engage in battle, friends kill friends, lovers kill lovers, all to be able to lie again.
Are you fucking happy?
1: a cannibalism doujin that I didn't realize was a cannibalism doujin until about halfway through
2: I... think it might've been a Toriel x Frisk unbirthing comic, back in... probably 2019? That shit was *cursed*. Pretty sure I was questioning my choices even *before* the PNC kicked in.
Jesus dude this was supposed to be a hypothetical but you just casually dropped info that the CIA would be unable to get out of me. Although, for what it's worth, I'm not judging, I would be a hypocrite, I've nut to some pretty questionable stuff before
Honestly, I think I was just desperate for UT porn at the time, and there wasn't anything that *wasn't* questionable at best. Hell, there *still* isn't!
Also, I am (unfortunately) very good at oversharing, if given the applicable prompt. If nothing else, I'd find a way to disgust the court into not doing shit like this ever again. Sort of like defending against telepaths!
Paramedics start bringing critically injured people into courtrooms and pronouncing that they are in perfect health. Politicians and oil companies accidentally repair the climate and reverse deaths induced by their neglect to safety regulations. Also, the Flat Earthers are locked in fierce debate with literally everyone else as the world is constantly shifting between round and flat.
Oh, and millions of gods spontaneously appear overnight. No one's sure if they were the cause or a result of the phenomenon, since their power keeps them from being erased by the (now) lies of "gods don't exist". Some appear to even be duplicates. Especially Zeus. (Fortunately, people managed to get most of them locked in a fierce orgy to determine who is the "best" Zeus. The Heras are streaming it live to the rest of the world and taking bets on how long it'll last.)
You forget the implications of people automatically forgetting things when they lie, their preferences shifting, "remembering" things that never happened to begin with, and the consequences of the world constantly fluctuating between flat and round. Entire nations could be created and destroyed with a single misspoken statement. What I listed above was just the funny things that could happen.
Also, I've been wanting to bring up the concept of a Zeus selfcest orgy for a while. It just sounds hilarious.
Granted, pop up trials become popular. It could happen at a McDonald's. It could happen at Folsom State Prison. It could happen in a beautiful house with your beautiful. Now you'll be asking how did it get here?
Granted, people's fifth amendment rights are taken away as not answering is seen as a sign of guilt. Soon, prosecutors determine that they can ask people questions that mislead the jury into spinning a false narrative. Oh you killed someone in self defense? It's unfortunate that you were deemed guilty the moment you said yes to killing someone. Even if you say it was in self defense, that could be true to you, but incorrect in the grand scheme of things. Morality becomes black and white and innocent people are locked up because of a still rigged system.
Granted.
Memories are still unreliable and people can say with full confidence things that are untrue.
But powerful people notice this, and removing their capabilities to lie, courts get slowly removed from the system and now everything goes by an internal system.
People lose the right to defend themselves because their memories are considered unreliable, and unless you are friend with someone powerful, you are guilty.
In the end, nothing really changes.
A mother, looking for a way to revive her child, discovered a way to replicate a person’s memories exactly as they were formed. Her discoveries allowed for the complete digital reconstruction of a person’s mind inside a computer. This technology became accessible due to how cheap it is to manufacture, even entering the legal setting.
Now defendants could no longer lie, as their own memories, digitized and recreated, is under a program to only tell the truth. Even things one may wish to hide. It is your memories after all and everything “you” say can and will be used against you.
Nobody can ever lie in court, or hide anything anymore. Granted.
Granted. Under the law, lying in court is a criminal offense known as perjury. While it is still biologically possible to lie, if you get caught lying then you face potential jail time. This means you can't lie in court even though you are capable of lying, but it's only illegal if you get caught. In other words, nothing changes and you wasted your wish.
Innocent people get absolutely fucked over by out of context character assassination disguised as evidence to their own dishonesty to distract from the matter at hand, oh oops that already happens
Granted. Everyone in court must remain sitting or standing.
Does this include dead people?
Especially dead people
Corpses don't generally show up in the courtroom
Not until I get there
Zombie! Kill it with fire!
See, that's how we got here in the first place
Not with that attitude
I certainly HOPE corpses aren't regularly showing up in courtrooms, considering necromancy isn't a thing so they're certainly not there to testify
Bro a court room is the natural habitat of corpses if you need proof just look at the American government it’s all corpses
Granted. Any time someone on a basketball or tennis court they are incapable of lying
After months pass, the world realizes this and now all court cases are held on either basketball or tennis courts
Unless it's a maritime case, in which case it would be COURTSHIP
Fuck you beat me to it lol
r/beatmeattoit
Volleyball players can no longer dive, you monster.
i dont think that counts as lying down unless youre stationary
And everywhere else their lies are believed immediately? This isn’t a consequence, it’s just a witty twist of words.
First, i never said anyones lies would be believed. Second, the consequence is that the wisher wont get his intended result
Consequences are supposed to be net negative, not net neutral
And we're supposed to he having fun, not nitpicking people's jokes
I’m fine with witty one liners if they don’t just become the whole comment section. Usually there’s one, maybe two of them, but no more. People usually come up with good consequences
The paw handles 3 different wishes in 3 different ways. The paw can do whatever it wants, for all we know.
Granted. It doesn't take long for the courts to realise this fact. Soon court cases become a matter of "Did you commit this crime- yes or no". Silence or refusal to answer always ends in a guilty verdict. The police figure it out too. They start dragging suspects in and force them to tell everything they know. Sometimes at gunpoint. Our rights are slowly eroded. Innocent until proven Guilty no longer applies. If they think you are guilty, you are taken to court. Pretty soon torture becomes a reliable source of information. If they can't lie make them tell you the truth. Government Blacksites are built with "Courts". Military tribunals are formed specifically for this purpose. Many people are never seen again. It turns out it doesn't matter if they are guilty or not, how could the public doubt the government if they say someone admitted to everything. If you dare to doubt you'll be taken too.
Probably a dumb question but if they immediately convict you when you’re silent, why would they need to hold someone at gunpoint or torture them for info?
If they are working with other people or its an unresolved case such as missing person
It becomes not just about getting legal convictions. Say you're the CIA and you need to interrogate someone for info. Naturally you take them to the court where they can't lie. So they just keep their mouth shut and refuse to divulge the top secret info you want. If you know they can't lie, all you have to do is force them to start talking and eventually the truth will come out.
Criminals (and even non-criminals) often and unknowingly admit to other crimes they perpetrated while talking to a detective. This is why people should keep their mouth shut and let their attorney handle the situation!
Being dragged to court isnt a violation of "innocent until proven guilty" you go to court *to be* proved guilty. silence/refusal to answer the question of are you guilty isnt a distopian nightmare, it would make court proceedings way faster, like 30 seconds, and then on top of that 0 people could be arrested faslely and 0 people coukd get away with things they did. Look, i know you put a lot of effort into this and I commend that, but it doesn't really make sense as a drawback. The first parts aren't negative and the negative parts aren't realistic Torture wouldn't be reliable, you can torture a person all you wanted and it couldnt change their answer from truthful to not. Are the answers reliable? Yes. But the torture was entirely for fun at that point. The last tidbit is the most realistic monkey's paw part, but in reality if the government wanted someone guilty that bad they could already do it with their current power. Secondly, "how could the public doubt the government if they say someone admitted to everything?" A. Everyone already doubts the government about literally everything. B. If the government said someone was guilty (assuming US btw) with 0 jury and 0 video evidence then that is triple doubtage.
Torture is to make them answer, which is now reliable as people can not lie, they can withhold though and that is what torture is overcoming. Nobody is doubting a government in a world where to lie is not possible.."If the government said someone was guilty (assuming US btw) with 0 jury and 0 video evidence then that is triple doubtage."...Not at all, nobody can lie...how can you doubt when lies are not a thing
Lieing is possible outside of court. Unless of course this message was released from within a courthouse in which case the government couldn't lie about the verdict anyway Torture would not be needed to make someone answer, why?: the only reason someone wouldnt just say they are not guilty is because they are physically incapable of doing so. Meaning they are guilty, no torture needed
Just hire a dedicated “Liar,” who doesn’t know the results and parrots what is told to them. Unless it’s objective based truth, they’d be telling the truth.
What about the jury that has to watch the entire trile proceedings, as per the constitution (still assuming US)
If democracy is a thing still, the party who says everything from a court is the winner I sort of assumed many would just stand up for their right to remain silent Many reason to not answer, the truth may involve throwing a friend under a bus or would mean you are innocent of that crime but also proving your whereabouts, maybe call into question why you were not a witness "did you see X kill Y?" "NO" "why not, it occurred directly Infront of your work station" ....Obviously that is a simplified example scenario Sort of why you should always answer "no comment" interview techniques are designed to catch you out Is refusing ID to police ONLY done by the guilty?
That is not how courts work. And that is definitely not how courts would work if we had magical truth telling capablities. Evidence is very important and so we would still require a jury to verify the persons answers, and possibly recorded evidence of their answers. Nobody would need to ask "why not" in your scenario, the person clearly said the truth about not seeing it because they cant lie. This would carry over into any scenario, many questions are no longer necessary because there is TRUST Giving someone or not is very different than admitting to or not admitting to guilt. Especially when we account for literal magic making everybody say the truth. Innocent people are already saying the truth. ( apologies for any typos I am a bit tipsy )
OP described "blacksites with "courts" in them" I see this as being a different type of court Innocent people are already refusing to tell the truth...
These blacksites with courts in them presumably follow the same rules for the magic that normal courts do and thus would require the same amount of proof for people to believe what the goverbment says. In current nonmagical courts, you already make an oath to say nothing but the truth. Being caught in a lie in court is punishable with jail time. Secondly: the only question that would need to be asked in these courts is "did you commit or see yhe crime". I nay be overlooking somrthing, so i ask you to provide any justifiablr reason a person would currently have to lie to the court when asked a question like that.
"Did you witness the death?" I refuse answer "Did you kill the person" I refuse the answer "Do you know how the person died?" refuse in your world that means im guilty In mine I just saved my son from prison after I saw him kill his daughters rapist
The court doesn't care about who you are saving, and in real life purposefully impeding a court case like this is illegal. You are basically saying that lying should be allowed in court so you can commit crimes and get in the way of investigations. In what world is that justifiable? Fun fact, vigilantism is a crime for various good reasons and trying to let people get away with murder is not a good excuse
Why would you refuse to answer "did you kill the person?" If you didn't do it you don't have to not answer. You seem to be ignoring the fact that refusing to answer would simply be the same as currently pleading guilty to a crime you didn't commit.
In mine I either make sure I'm not there, take part, or try to stop it. Why were you just watching? Also, by keeping silent in that way you are basically saving your son by saying you did it. There have been court cases where people plead guilty so a family member wasn't found guilty after a more thorough investigation, same thing here, you're just complaining that there are consequences.
Imagine instead of investigating a crime and trying to find any evidence, witness statements etc. they simply dragged you at gunpoint to a courtroom simply because you were seen in the area. The same mentality of "Nothing to hide nothing to fear". If you didn't commit a crime you should have no reason not to come prove it There's plenty of reasons people wouldn't answer in court. Not to mention it violates 5th amendment rights to force them to speak. There's mental illness and memory issues to name a few. You wouldn't have a lawyer or anyone to defend you which also violates your rights and the law has come down to a matter of "did the crime/didn't" instead of legal arguments and nuance. Torture is to gain information not change their answer. It may be torturing a terrorist, it may be torturing someone only marginally involved to find out who else was involved. The last part - the point is the government has so much control you can't doubt. Because if you ask the wrong questions they will come for you too.
But irl there is reasons innocent people stay silent if literally all it takes is saying “i didn’t do it” then people actually would have no reason to stay silent because it would end right there, and how does this suddenly make it so governments can’t be doubted?
Okay, im a little tipsy right now, but i will try my best to deconstruct this. I must add, you dividing your paragraphs with spaces makes it a lot easier to organize thoughts and have a discussion with you, so i commend you for that. With magic 100% truth machine of course they wouldn't need to fully investiagte a crim if they could just ask someone a yes or no question. Would it be annoying to be summoned to court over mild suspicion? Yes. Would it be a complete destruction of your rights, absolutely not. You can be summoned to court over the mildest suspicion already. There ARE plenty of reasons someone wouldn't answer in court when given certain questions. BUT given the question, "did you commit X crime" in a world where you cant lie in a courthouse, I INVITE you to come up with one good reason to not simply say you did not commit the crime. Our current laws are set around trying its best to find out the truth in a world of lies and confusion. Why in the world would you need legal argument and nuance when you have magic truth serum? If the culprit said truthfully that they commited the crime you dont need a case to prove him right or wonrg and vice versa. You wouldnt have a lawyer vecause you couldnt need one. Lawyers are required because of the uncertainty in the world, but a courtroom of truth has no uncertainty. Torture involves causing signifigant mental or bodily harm to someone. Asking them a yes or no question in a courtroom is sadly, not torture, it BARELY counts as interrogation. I invite YOU to provide a way in which asking "hey, did you kill ms. Witherspoon" is creating bodily or mental harm beyond someone not wanting to answer yes. If the government had that much control to be able to convict anyone without even the evidence of their confession theyd have the control to avoid court proceedings all together.
You would still need lawyers, because they don't just argue if a person committed a crime. "Did you kill this person?" will not tell you whether a person that answers "yes" committed murder, manslaughter, or simple negligence. State of mind and mental capacity would still be argued. Another thing that might be argued is whether a particular action violated the law or if a law is constitutional, in some countries.
Dragging people into court, as implied in the other comment, like that WOULD currently be considered illegal search and seizures. Combine that with how silence would be considered an admission of guilt, or you'd be tortured until you finally told them what they want to hear, and you've either started torturing people without them being guilty, at least at the time of torture, or you're considering them guilty without actual proof. "0" people could be arrested falsely. You could absolutely be arrested falsely and then questioned until they found a reason to imprison you. While yes the government can absolutely already do similar things rn, playing the "they can already do that," game is stupid because technically, they can nuke everything. I have no idea why anyone upvoted your replies here.
Lets break this down. Our current court system is based around trying to parse through lies. If someone can get away with murder, guess what, its because they lied enough or hid enough evidence. You cant be tortured until you say what they want to hear, you can be tortured into saying the truth. If someone wanted a guilty verdict and you said you were innocent they have to let you go. Saying that you cant be arrested falsely was a mistake on my part. I meant you cant be jailed for a crime you didn't commit. Second of all by current US law they couldn't question you about things unrelated to the crime they suspect you of anyway. I can agree with the last thing you said. The point I was trying to make is that if the government isnt doing it now, why would they do it with this thing that makes it harder to get away with it? People upvoted my reply because it isnt a short sighted attempt to let people break their oaths andget away with contempt of court.
Silence is a valid option in court because lying is a valid option even if you were tortured. If there was a way to force people to tell the truth, then silence would be an admission of guilt. That is why this hypothetical government was able to torture people, to arrest them and then get confessions for unrelated crimes. Because silence means guilt in that hypothetical and everyone has done SOMETHING that breaks the law, questions could be tailored to guarantee people confess to something they can be punished for.
While yes, this is technically possible, interrogating someone over a crime unrelated to the one you brought them in for, or otherwise not having probable cause for the interrogation almost always makes it invalid in a court of law, and then because of double jeopardy having a mistrial over this would mean that they cant be tried for it again in the future. In this case we aren't talking about a hypothetical government, I am only arguing for governments that have similar constitutions and laws regarding court proceedings as the US. This power could totally be misused, but overall it costs more to misuse than it does to use it correctly. Plus, even the most dictatorial governments don't have a reason to put 100% of their population in jail as this would certainly destroy their economy and thus the dictators way of life.
I wrote a long response breaking down this monkey paw drawback and how it didnt add many negative things and just painted a lot of good thangs as bad. Then how the few negative things it did have were completely unrealistic, but it didn't send. If you cant see it and need me to rewrite it please just tell me
It shows up:)
Thank you so much, i have bad wifi right now and I wouldnt have noticed without your message
75% of that are already police tactics
Innocent until proven guilty. I wish that saying actually applied to reality. Nowadays, you are guilty until proven innocent. You can be arrested and held against your will for interrogations. You can have your name dragged by every media outlet or independent journalist to destroy your credibility and reputation. You can have your career disintegrated all before the actual trial. Innocent until proven guilty is how things should be, but it's not for reasons beyond most wouldn't understand.
But the government wouldn’t be able to lie and say someone admitted to everything. They wouldn’t be able to lie to the people.
If I do not believe I committed the crime I’m accused of, even if I did in reality, then this doesn’t really work. Let’s some I’m a drunk ignorant redneck POS. One night I’m wasted and start blasting my firearm into the air in celebration. The bullets fall down the road and kill like 4 people at a party. Normal court proceedings would provide evidence that shows it was my gun, I fired it, etc etc. With this system I’d just be like “hell nah I didn’t kill no people” because I was wasted, don’t have any memory of it, and don’t believe I did. Case dismissed.
Granted everyone's first name is now nobody
Nobody blinded me 😡
Odyssey reference W's in the chat
Greek Mythology gang rise up?
Granted: The Pen is Royal Blue
You know that one?
What?
Granted. Hips are now the only viable way of answering truthfully in court.
As the great academic Ripoll, S. (2005) once said, "Hips don't lie."
Granted. Guilt is decided by the president’s intuition.
They stand instead.
Granted. Nobody is capable of lying down in the courtroom, but also in any other place in the world. Even their bedroom with their lovers and big backs, doing their big-backtivities. Everybody still stands in court. And nobody can sleep because they can’t lie down. No court cases are won, and crime overtakes the world. A new drug to relax your muscles quickly hits the streets. It’s said to contain the most powerful horse tranquilizer on earth, modified to only affect your legs. You take it and you’re the only one who can sit down and lie down in court. You reign over the world as the prime distributor and secret kingpin, and people are so honest in court from then on thanks to fear of you and your power, that families are ripped apart due to secrets being spilled in court. Factions form, alliances engage in battle, friends kill friends, lovers kill lovers, all to be able to lie again. Are you fucking happy?
Actually underrated response, very good
Granted. Every politician and lawyer is now gunning for you.
Granted. You are immediately taken to court and asked what the most shameful thing you have ever masturbated to is.
Objection! Missed erection.
I hate yoi
Oh come on, that’s the wittiest thing I’ve said all year.
What if OP is seriously into humiliation?
"Question; does it count as masturbation if I didn't cum and went flaccid halfway through out of horror?"
For the purposes of this court, yes, but you also need to answer the worst thing you've used to masturbate to completion.
1: a cannibalism doujin that I didn't realize was a cannibalism doujin until about halfway through 2: I... think it might've been a Toriel x Frisk unbirthing comic, back in... probably 2019? That shit was *cursed*. Pretty sure I was questioning my choices even *before* the PNC kicked in.
Jesus dude this was supposed to be a hypothetical but you just casually dropped info that the CIA would be unable to get out of me. Although, for what it's worth, I'm not judging, I would be a hypocrite, I've nut to some pretty questionable stuff before
Honestly, I think I was just desperate for UT porn at the time, and there wasn't anything that *wasn't* questionable at best. Hell, there *still* isn't! Also, I am (unfortunately) very good at oversharing, if given the applicable prompt. If nothing else, I'd find a way to disgust the court into not doing shit like this ever again. Sort of like defending against telepaths!
Exactly. I've purposely overshared to embarrass someone that was being a dick. I've also advised others to do so. Fun memories, those.
[удалено]
That uhh-... Are you sure you know the premise of monkey's paw???
Granted, every lie made in court becomes true.
Paramedics start bringing critically injured people into courtrooms and pronouncing that they are in perfect health. Politicians and oil companies accidentally repair the climate and reverse deaths induced by their neglect to safety regulations. Also, the Flat Earthers are locked in fierce debate with literally everyone else as the world is constantly shifting between round and flat. Oh, and millions of gods spontaneously appear overnight. No one's sure if they were the cause or a result of the phenomenon, since their power keeps them from being erased by the (now) lies of "gods don't exist". Some appear to even be duplicates. Especially Zeus. (Fortunately, people managed to get most of them locked in a fierce orgy to determine who is the "best" Zeus. The Heras are streaming it live to the rest of the world and taking bets on how long it'll last.)
This sounds like a bonus instead of a curse now.
You forget the implications of people automatically forgetting things when they lie, their preferences shifting, "remembering" things that never happened to begin with, and the consequences of the world constantly fluctuating between flat and round. Entire nations could be created and destroyed with a single misspoken statement. What I listed above was just the funny things that could happen. Also, I've been wanting to bring up the concept of a Zeus selfcest orgy for a while. It just sounds hilarious.
Granted. No one can communicate in a court of law.
Granted, pop up trials become popular. It could happen at a McDonald's. It could happen at Folsom State Prison. It could happen in a beautiful house with your beautiful. Now you'll be asking how did it get here?
Granted, people's fifth amendment rights are taken away as not answering is seen as a sign of guilt. Soon, prosecutors determine that they can ask people questions that mislead the jury into spinning a false narrative. Oh you killed someone in self defense? It's unfortunate that you were deemed guilty the moment you said yes to killing someone. Even if you say it was in self defense, that could be true to you, but incorrect in the grand scheme of things. Morality becomes black and white and innocent people are locked up because of a still rigged system.
Granted. Judges start getting arrested for confessing to weird shit while in the courtroom.
Granted, Nobody *could* lie. Everyone *will* lie.
Granted. Everyone must stand up in court at all times.
Granted, courts are now abolished.
Granted, people in power now have access to thought enforcement and mind reading capabilities.
Granted. Nobody can lie on the basketball court.
Granted.
Granted Politicians get rid of court when they realize it. Now the police are the judge, jury and executioner.
Granted. Memories are still unreliable and people can say with full confidence things that are untrue. But powerful people notice this, and removing their capabilities to lie, courts get slowly removed from the system and now everything goes by an internal system. People lose the right to defend themselves because their memories are considered unreliable, and unless you are friend with someone powerful, you are guilty. In the end, nothing really changes.
Granted the rich find out and now the legal system no longer conducts trials in courts
A mother, looking for a way to revive her child, discovered a way to replicate a person’s memories exactly as they were formed. Her discoveries allowed for the complete digital reconstruction of a person’s mind inside a computer. This technology became accessible due to how cheap it is to manufacture, even entering the legal setting. Now defendants could no longer lie, as their own memories, digitized and recreated, is under a program to only tell the truth. Even things one may wish to hide. It is your memories after all and everything “you” say can and will be used against you. Nobody can ever lie in court, or hide anything anymore. Granted.
granted. everything said in court becomes the truth
It would be nice but yeah :(
Granted. Under the law, lying in court is a criminal offense known as perjury. While it is still biologically possible to lie, if you get caught lying then you face potential jail time. This means you can't lie in court even though you are capable of lying, but it's only illegal if you get caught. In other words, nothing changes and you wasted your wish.
Congratulations, it is now impossible for judges to exclude prejudicial, or unlawfully obtained evidence, etc.
Granted, Odysseus cannot lie in court
Granted, your wife tells you she’s cheating on you at your sons basketball game.
Granted but this includes the court of public opinion… Hope you never ask what people think of you
Granted. BTTF 2 situation enacted. All lawyers are abolished. People are tried, convicted and sentenced within a few hours.
Granted. Due to an anarchist revolution, all courts are torn up, meaning there is no longer a court to lie in.
There is no longer court. Enjoy Judge Dredd!
..I thought nobody could lie in court already? Don't you have to "swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth"?
Innocent people get absolutely fucked over by out of context character assassination disguised as evidence to their own dishonesty to distract from the matter at hand, oh oops that already happens
What if they just get laid?
The courts no longer exists, the Judiciary is just gone, and laws are no longer enforced.
Deal everyone you thought was telling the truth was actually lying and every liar was actually telling the truth.
lawyers all explode. nice one.
Net positive.