I hear they are 96% accurate so surely it would make sense for the result to at least make up part of the evidence? Just thinking about the many miscarriages of justice we have - people sitting in prison doing life when they actually are innocent. No real relevance to me - just wondering that's all! lol
2006-11-03 01:43:56 · 5 answers · asked by Michelle H 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
They are far from being reliable. I took one for fun and it stated that I was the head of a drug cartel.
2006-11-03 01:47:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Unfortunately, I don't think they are admissable at this moment in time. There was some talk of changing that in the future (but that was a while ago and I've not heard anything since).
2006-11-03 02:02:11 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thet are infact very easy to trick as long as you know how they work. I don't know what the law has to say about them.
2006-11-03 01:52:43 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think that they are circumstantial evidence so although Cary's some wait in court must have better evidence as well
2006-11-03 01:48:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope.
2006-11-03 01:46:55 · answer #5 · answered by J Tourettes 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if it is to the Governments advantage!
2006-11-03 03:38:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
they are so fakable if you can regulate your breathing or have a stone in your shoe
and poke your foot with it you can bluf it
2006-11-03 02:29:21 · answer #7 · answered by martin n 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No & there not that reliable especially when your innocent?
2006-11-07 00:04:20 · answer #8 · answered by Ollie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not for the lawyers and judges, lying bastards.
2006-11-07 00:39:42 · answer #9 · answered by manforallseasons 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋