Use of truth serums to save lives - Pros and cons?

My general formula for evaluating truth serums, torture, etc. is the following…

If you must create a hypothetical scenario like the one presented, it’s a bad idea.

Cons:
– Wouldn’t we be violating some rights here by involuntarily administering the truth serum?

Pros:
– __________ (anyone??)

Ignoring ethical/moral issues, there are some legal issues with the use of truth serum. First, there is the fifith amendment, which states that no one can be forced to testify against themself. Revealing the location of the child is pretty strong proof of that person being the kidnapper. If the kidnapper is not convicted of the crime in court, he is still a suspect and is only accused of the crime, and the fifth amendment still applies. If the kidnapper has already been tried for the crime, then I don’t think that the fifth amendment applies because the kidnapper has already been sentenced or set free, in which case he gets off the hook forever.

@tom_g – The scenario mentioned above happened in Germany in 2002. One policeman threatened to physically torture the kidnapper if he didn’t tell him the location. Two years later the policeman was convicted and had to pay a fine because of his threat. He broke the law even though torture never happened. No truth serums either. Yesterday I read about this old case and contemplated the predicament of this policeman. He wanted to save the boy’s life without inflicting serious harm on the kidnapper. Do you think such a situation is unusual? A purely hypothetical scenario? What would the parents expect from the police?

@mattbrowne: “What would the parents expect from the police?”

I am a parent, and I would expect the suspect to ripped apart with a scalpel until my kid was home. This is precisely why we have laws.

@mattbrowne: “Do you think such a situation is unusual? A purely hypothetical scenario?”

While my instinct is that this type of situation is unusual, my opinion about torture and other rights-violating things does not depend on the frequency. If we determine that torture is bad (this is a huge topic alone), then I don’t feel it is right to set aside situations in which torture is ok. First, there are the situations in which the wrong person is being held. Second, we’re talking about the state being given power to do things that are generally illegal and immoral.
Regarding truth serum, @PhiNotPi already mentioned the fifth amendment.

Also, you’re talking about the state doing really bad things in order to save lives. I can cook up a bunch of really bad things the state could be doing right now to save lives – all of them are gross violations of our privacy.

Since the incident happened in Germany, the fifth amendment I mention in my reply wouldn’t apply. But I am sure they have some similar law to the fifth amendment.
Also, if the person was tried and released, then he still could not be forced to use a truth serum because he is legally completely innocent of the crime.

I can see the use of truth serum or its equivalent, but there would have to be really strong regulation on how it could be used. I recently came across this article on the latest lie detector technology.

Yes, any use of truth serums are illegal in Germany. The unethical use of truth drugs is classified as a form of torture according to international law.

There are other ways of convincing suspects to talk, the only problem is that they require skill and knowledge. Both of which are more inconvenient than a dose of truth serum or a punch to the face.

In your scanario in the details I am for the truth serum option.