I know they are not 100% accurate but I'm sure it can help somehow right? Thanks in advance.
2007-02-19 08:55:37 · 9 answers · asked by michaelle8885 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Right? NO, wrong! They are not reliable and that unreliability could cause a perfectly innocent person to be deemed guilty.
2007-02-19 08:58:38 · answer #1 · answered by sage seeker 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that you actually answered your own Question. The (Polygraph Machine) is a very good *Tool* to detect Inconsistencies in someones *Testimony* but,as far as a Machine is concerned it is just a **Mere Machine** & cannot be used as (Evidence) in a Court Of Law because, Once again- it's a machine that is capable of makeing ***Mistakes*** If the Polygraph Machine were to be used as Evidence, Especially in a (Murder Trial) & that (Defendant) whom which is being Accused of Murder is found ***GUILTY*** because the Polygraph's Instruments indicate that the Defendant was (Lying) dureing His/Her Testimony & later is (Convicted Of Murder) & later the court reviews the machines (InnerWorkings) & finds that the Machine was not working (Properly) dureing the (Defendants Testimony) than the Court would have to call a (MisTrial) because it was found that the Polygraph was not properly working as it should have been. It would indeed be more cost effective to believe more on the (Testimony) of a Human vs. a machine. I hope that I have answered your question as full as possible. Sincerely rumeoui!!!
2007-02-19 09:16:21 · answer #2 · answered by rumeoui 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mainly because they aren't 100% accurate. Also, it is hard to tell when it is being accurate or inaccurate. So really, the ability to cast doubt on the method makes it so any answer given can be reasonably doubted. So really, the test is not better in court then testimony. Also, the 5th amendment comes into play.
2007-02-19 09:00:05 · answer #3 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because there are too many variables. The person taking the test may know how to defeat it with breathing and meditation for example. Also, the person giving the test can manipulate the test just in the way they ask the questions. We are much better off with it not being allowed as evidence.
2007-02-19 09:00:05 · answer #4 · answered by progunr 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Polygraph results are not permitted in any court as evidence; neither can it be mentioned in court that the defendent has taken one.
Why? Because polygraphs are notoriously unreliable. No one can force anyone to take one, either.
2007-02-19 09:55:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think a person has to agree in order to be sujected to the test. He can't be forced if he doesn't want to take it. That and it's also not 100% accurate.
2007-02-19 08:58:30 · answer #6 · answered by some guy 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lie detectors accurately measure phisiological response (stress). It does not measure whether you are telling the truth.
There are published techniques for beating the test.
2007-02-19 09:00:50 · answer #7 · answered by Skeptic 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No nothing that is inaccurate should be used, if you knew the how easily these things can be manipulated you'd know better
2007-02-19 08:58:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
To unreliable!
2007-02-19 09:02:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋