Veritaserum..

[Radagast The Brown]

Did anyone else had a problem with the potion?

Not with the potion directly - but with what effects a potion of this kind should have. I mean, if it can tell you all the truth and only the truth - why do you actually need a court? Just give the accused the potion, and he'll tell you whether he did it or not. Obviously, the ministry of magic can afford the materials for such important cause if Snape can.

What do others think..? Is there any good excuse for not having the potion in courts?

[Rían]

Good point, Rad! Maybe wizards that are powerful enough to be in court can somehow overcome it?

Yeah, there's lots of little oddities like that in the books, IMO. "why didn't they just do such-and-such?" etc.

I guess Rowling didn't take as long over her books as JRRT did! But they're still enjoyable.

[inked]

CoNsIsTeNcY iS tHe HoBgObLiN oF lItTlE mInDs, Ya'Ll.

I think there are constraints on the Wizengamot similar to our British and American systems of trial by law. That is, trial by evidence before a jury of your peers. It is often ignored as in the case of Rubeus Hagrid and Sirius, but even when improperly used (as in the trial of Harry re: Dementor attacks and use of magic), there is the necessity of preserving form.

Besides, use of veritaserum would scarcely make the plot go round, would it?
It's rather like Gollum's escape from the elves! Is that totally consistent with Legolas' demeanor (well, maybe if they were related to the naughty elves at Rivendell in the Hobbit!)?

[IronParrot]

I think - and this is just my theorizing in order to justify a potential loophole Rowling left open - that the use of veritaserum could be restricted on ethical grounds. It's essentially a "non-painful" form of torture to extract information, possibly far more information than you need. That doesn't sound like due process to me, and the fairness of due process is essential to a justice system that presumes innocence. Basically, what I'm saying is that the use of veritaserum in the first place presumes that the defendant has something to spill - never mind the potential use of leading questions to produce limited testimony.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by IronParrot

I think - and this is just my theorizing in order to justify a potential loophole Rowling left open - that the use of veritaserum could be restricted on ethical grounds. It's essentially a "non-painful" form of torture to extract information, possibly far more information than you need. That doesn't sound like due process to me, and the fairness of due process is essential to a justice system that presumes innocence. Basically, what I'm saying is that the use of veritaserum in the first place presumes that the defendant has something to spill - never mind the potential use of leading questions to produce limited testimony.

Maybe you're right - but then, after the accused is going to be sent to prison, wouldn't it be better to give him Veritaserum? Maybe with his agreement, knowing he's right?
Furthermore - why would the Ministry actually ask the caught Death Eaters for names, and not just give them Veritaserum and get it out of them? How is it inappropriate, while killing them isn't?

Originally Posted by inked

Besides, use of veritaserum would scarcely make the plot go round, would it?

Then I suppose she should've thought about it before she had decided to have it in her books.

[IronParrot]

Hmm... the plot thickens.

As far as why you wouldn't just administer veritaserum to get people to name names... well, I think there's a certain value in being able to identify who's willing to name names and who isn't. Those who are willing to switch allegiances again do so at their own peril - just look at Karkaroff. It says something about whether or not they should be reintegrated into wizarding society. (Then again, given Crouch's rather McCarthian crusade, maybe this isn't a significant boon.)

Then the question is, why don't you just administer veritaserum to those who weren't willing to name names? Because then you'd create an incentive for them to testify, thus obscuring the difference I mentioned above - or, alternatively, offer false testimony.

And then we're right back where we started.