QotW #11: Should Lie Detectors be Admissible as Evidence in Court?
- Thread starter La Femme Fatale
- Start date
Venomous Oddball
Also Known as Maddy
I think they should be used, but not relied on. It could be wrong, though I admit I know next to nothing about them.
Hel
Goddess of the Dead
I've asked myself this question a million times and I don't get why they're not doing that already. It can't be a human rights thing because you're not supposed to lie in court anyway, no matter how personal the questions are, it's even punishable as far as I know, so why not prevent people from lying in the first place? Sure, it's not 100% reliable, but what is?
mjk321
Well-Known Member
I think it's because it's not that accurate. also, an innocent person might be saying the truth, but because of nervousness or whatever mental state the person might be in, the machine might pick up false positives (or whatever the term is). good liars can also control themselves to beat a lie detector.
Last edited:
cheezMcNASTY
Entertain me.
Like pretty much everyone else said: supplementary evidence only.
I don't think you could win a case if your only evidence is a polygraph, so it may more or less be where it ought to be already in terms of evidence priority.
I don't think you could win a case if your only evidence is a polygraph, so it may more or less be where it ought to be already in terms of evidence priority.
Rain611
You can't kill me.
I don't think they should be admissible in court. Lie detectors depend on changes in the body's physiology that correspond to lying, ie racing pulse, sweating, etc. Thing is, if you're an overly nervous person like I tend to be, I would fail in no time because nervousness often manifests itself with similar physiological changes.
Things can be said about people that are the opposite of myself. For example. My husband has Asperger's Syndrome. He also has two degrees in Criminal Justice. Over the course of his studies, one of the things they did in class was give students lie detector tests. Due to his Asperger's, he doesn't feel emotions the way your average joe would, and he was easily able to fool the lie detector. The same thing happens with psychopaths. They don't feel empathy or guilt and so they tend to commonly fool lie detectors.
They are too unreliable for many reasons on both ends of the spectrum of potential subjects being tested. I think they would be better off trusting an MRI or relying on body language or both, as opposed to lie detectors.
Things can be said about people that are the opposite of myself. For example. My husband has Asperger's Syndrome. He also has two degrees in Criminal Justice. Over the course of his studies, one of the things they did in class was give students lie detector tests. Due to his Asperger's, he doesn't feel emotions the way your average joe would, and he was easily able to fool the lie detector. The same thing happens with psychopaths. They don't feel empathy or guilt and so they tend to commonly fool lie detectors.
They are too unreliable for many reasons on both ends of the spectrum of potential subjects being tested. I think they would be better off trusting an MRI or relying on body language or both, as opposed to lie detectors.
Spikeyroxas
Pencil Artist
I think for high cases (such as murder or worse) in which cases may go on for a while.
Lie detectors should be uses at regular intervals to ensure a fairer test. If the results are all not the same then it should not be considered.
If the answers are all the same each time I think the results should be considered in the future questions and possible verdict.
Lie detectors should be uses at regular intervals to ensure a fairer test. If the results are all not the same then it should not be considered.
If the answers are all the same each time I think the results should be considered in the future questions and possible verdict.
Springhosen
Kahnum of Outworld
Lie detectors don't test lies, they test how uncomfortable your body is, so no.
Hel
Goddess of the Dead
All your comments are making me question my earlier post. I'm not too familiar with how traditional lie detectors work (never actually saw one myself), but didn't they come up with a new one that is nearly impossible to fool because it detects lies by reading people's brainwaves or something? Or maybe not and I've just been watching too much Alias lately.
cheezMcNASTY
Entertain me.
The new tech has been invented but is not widely used. The time table for it is "within a decade."
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/science/...earchers-new-form-lie-detector-test-polygraph
Romero
Her royal court joker
I don't think they are reliable enough to be used as evidence, but I'm not saying they should never be used. But I worry that courts may trust a detector too much.
Lie detectors are not used in Norway and I have never tested one.
I figured out how to sabotage the results of a lie detector and make the result useless when I was a child, after I had seen on TV how lie detectors work. And later I learned how you can lie and pass, passing is perhaps not as easy as it sounds but the method is very similar to sabotaging the results.
Lie detectors are not used in Norway and I have never tested one.
I figured out how to sabotage the results of a lie detector and make the result useless when I was a child, after I had seen on TV how lie detectors work. And later I learned how you can lie and pass, passing is perhaps not as easy as it sounds but the method is very similar to sabotaging the results.