Murderers should be injected with truth serum so victims’ families can find out where their bodies are, say top criminal defence barristers

Murderers who refuse to say where their victims’ bodies are hidden should be injected with truth serum, two leading criminal justice lawyers have argued.

Former NSW Attorney Margaret Cunneen SC and Victorian barrister Sharon Kermath are calling on state governments across Australia to at least try the concept once a murderer is convicted.

“It’s a great idea,” said Ms. Cunneen The Australian.

“I think it might find favor now… for the sake of the victims.”

Mind-altering psychoactive drugs like 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.

While similar chemical compounds have been used as far back as ancient Rome, no democratic nation uses the drugs for criminal justice—apart from a small number of Indian states.

In one such drug-actualized example, a wealthy businessman and his valet in Uttar Pradesh in northern India were injected with a truth serum in 2007, after which they allegedly confessed to the gruesome murders of 17 children and women.

On another occasion, the only surviving terrorist from the 2008 Mumbai attacks was reportedly also administered Pentothal, which induces hypnosis and anesthesia.

Forcibly injecting a poisoner – even one convicted of murder – is considered a gross violation of human rights under international law, especially if it further burdens the individual.

But Ms. Cunneen believes there may be a way around this legal principle.

“There could be a protection that covers (the perpetrator), meaning it can’t be used to punish him or her, but can be used to find information about others or about the location of bodies and so on,” she said.

Her comments come a year after NSW introduced “no body, no parole” laws, which prevent killers from being paroled unless they disclose the location of their victim’s body. Dubbed ‘Lyn’s Law’, the measures were introduced in the wake of the final conviction of Chris Dawson (pictured) for the murder of his 33-year-old wife Lynette, who fled their North Beach home more than 40 years ago. disappeared.

“If it were my daughter’s body that was missing forever, I’d want it too. I suppose the fundamental resistance to this stems from the fact that people are forced to testify against themselves.

‘In a sense it is. It goes against the right not to incriminate oneself.’

Ms Cunneen’s comments come a year after NSW introduced the ‘no body, no parole’ law, which prevents killers from being paroled unless they disclose the location of their victim’s body.

Dubbed ‘Lyn’s Law’, the measures were introduced in the wake of Chris Dawson’s final conviction for the murder of his 33-year-old wife Lynette, who disappeared from their North Beach home more than 40 years ago.

The body of the mother of two children has never been found.

Ms Cunneen’s comments reportedly sparked the case of convicted child murderer Bevan Spencer von Einem, who is currently serving a life sentence at Adelaide’s Port Augusta Prison.

Von Einem was convicted of only one of the so-called family murders in 1983, but is the prime 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 prompted by the case of convicted child murderer Bevan Spencer von Einem, who is currently serving a life sentence at Adelaide’s Port Augusta Prison (pictured)

The amendment brought NSW into line with laws in Queensland, WA, SA, Victoria and the Northern Territory, where offenders can be denied parole if they refuse to disclose the whereabouts of victims’ remains.

Ms Kermath, who has acted in criminal cases in Victoria for more than 20 years, supported Ms Cunneen’s argument, claiming that the chemical could provide major closure for the victims’ families.

“If it’s after a case has been completed and the person has been convicted of murder, and there’s a body somewhere, it can be used to close down the family,” Ms Kermath said.

Ms Kermath highlighted the thorny issue of consent in any forthcoming legislative changes.

“To make this possible, parliament would have to pass a law that says it can be used with permission, and then if permission is not given, reasonable force can be used,” she said.

But other legal experts rejected the idea.

Professor Rick Sarre, professor of law at the University of South Australia, called it ‘complete hocus pocus’.

“It’s a bit like torture,” he said.

“We used to use torture to extract confessions or get people to tell things, and that was completely unreliable. It sounds as reliable as a lie detector and torture that reveals the truth.’