Killers who refuse to say where their victims’ bodies are hidden should be injected with truth serum, two leading criminal defence barristers have argued.
Former NSW crown prosecutor Margaret Cunneen SC and Victorian barrister Sharon Kermath are calling for state governments across Australia to at least trial the concept once a murderer has been convicted.
‘It’s a great idea,’ Ms Cunneen told The Australian.
‘I think it might find some favour now… for the good of the victims.’
Former NSW crown prosecutor Margaret Cunneen SC (pictured) is calling for federal governments across Australia to at least trial the concept of a ‘truth serum’ once a murderer has been convicted if they refuse to reveal the location of a body
Mind-altering psychoactive drugs such as sodium pentothal and scopolamine can manipulate the brain to make it impossible to lie (stock image)
Mind-altering psychoactive drugs such as sodium pentothal and scopolamine can manipulate the brain to make it impossible to lie.
Although similar chemical compounds have been used as far back as ancient Rome, no democratic nations use the drugs for criminal justice – apart from a small number of Indian states.
In one example of such a drug being put into practice, a wealthy businessman and his servant in Uttar Pradesh in northern India, were injected with a truth serum in 2007 after which they supposedly confessed to the gruesome murders of 17 children and women.
On another occasion, the sole surviving terrorist from the 2008 Mumbai attacks was also reportedly given Pentothal, which induces hypnosis and anesthesia.
Forcibly injecting a poisoner – even one convicted of murder – is regarded as a gross breach of human rights under international law particularly if it further incriminates the individual.
But Ms Cunneen believes there may be a way to side-step this legal principle.
‘There could be this protection which covers (the offender) which means it can’t be used to punish them, but it can be used to find information about others or about locations of bodies and so forth,’ she said.
Her comments come a year after NSW brought in ‘no body, no parole’ laws, which prevent murderers from being released on parole unless they reveal the location of their victim’s body. Dubbed ‘Lyn’s Law’, the measures were introduced in the wake of Chris Dawson’s (pictured) eventual conviction for murdering his 33-year-old wife Lynette, who vanished from their northern beaches home over 40 years ago
‘If it was my daughter’s body missing forever I’d want it, too. I suppose the fundamental resistance to it comes from people being forced to give evidence against themselves.
‘In a sense, that’s what it is. It goes against the right not to incriminate oneself.’
Ms Cunneen’s comments come a year after NSW brought in ‘no body, no parole’ laws, which prevent murderers from being released on parole unless they reveal the location of their victim’s body.
Dubbed ‘Lyn’s Law’, the measures were introduced in the wake of Chris Dawson’s eventual conviction for murdering his 33-year-old wife Lynette, who vanished from their northern beaches home over 40 years ago.
The mother-of-two’s body has never been found.
Ms Cunneen’s comments were reportedly triggered by the case of convicted child murderer Bevan Spencer von Einem, currently locked up for life in Port Augusta Prison in Adelaide.
Von Einem was convicted on just one of the so-called Family murders in 1983 but is the leading suspect in the unsolved murders of four other young men between 1979 and 1982.
He has also been linked to the missing Beaumont children and two girls who disappeared from Adelaide Oval in 1973.
Ms Cunneen’s comments were reportedly triggered by the case of convicted child murderer Bevan Spencer von Einem, currently locked up for life in Port Augusta Prison in Adelaide (pictured)
The legislative change brought NSW into line with laws in Queensland, WA, SA, Victoria and the Northern Territory, where offenders can be refused parole if they refuse to disclose the whereabouts of victims’ remains.
Ms Kermath, who has acted in criminal matters in Victoria for over two decades, supported Ms Cunneen’s argument, claiming the chemical could provide great closure for victims’ families.
‘If it is after a case has finished, and the person has been convicted of murder, and there is a body somewhere, it could be used to give the family closure,’ Ms Kermath said.
Ms Kermath highlighted the tricky issue of consent in any forthcoming changes to the law.
‘In order to make this happen, the parliament would have to pass a law saying it could be used with consent, and then if consent is not given then reasonable force could be used,’ she said.
But other legal experts rubbished the idea.
University of South Australia law professor Rick Sarre dubbed it ‘complete hocus pocus’.
‘It’s a bit like torture,’ he said.
‘We used to use torture to get confessions or get people to tell you things and it was totally unreliable. It sounds as reliable as a polygraph and torture eliciting truth.’
***
Read more at DailyMail.co.uk