I've always wondered that. I mean I guess someone could say that the test was false but they could also have evidence to back up the guilty verdict.
2007-03-26 00:40:20 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Two reasons: First and foremost, any type of questioning against someone's will/search must be done only upon reasonable suspicion. Therefore, if you were to bring someone in before there was an actual basis for doing so you would be violating the constitution. Second, lie detector tests are inherently unreliable. They do not get much respect in court proceedings. They are basically used to assist in investigations.
2007-03-26 05:12:06 · answer #1 · answered by Tara P 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Polygraphs aren't from now on almost as precise as maximum human beings believe them to be. The try itself relies upon on the accused or the single being examined feeling some form of guilt about mendacity. The lie detector does no longer really come across lies. It video reveal instruments physiological responses to questions and solutions. No such try could be used as teach in a courtroom docket.
2016-12-02 20:14:03 · answer #2 · answered by sarro 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Lie detectors" measure a persons reaction to questions and answers. They don't actually indicate whether or not the person is telling the truth. Collecting hard physical evidence is much better when used to determine what happened.
2007-03-26 00:48:28 · answer #3 · answered by Paul K 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lie detectors are not 100% accurate and the lawyers would have a field day tearing that evidence apart.
2007-03-26 00:43:45 · answer #4 · answered by Jen 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lie detectors are used by police as an investigation tool. However, the results are unrealiable and therefore they cannot be presented as evidence in a trial.
2007-03-26 00:51:48 · answer #5 · answered by Bryan 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lie detectors are not infallible AND there is a small matter of the Constitution...which says you cannot be forced to incriminate yourself.
2007-03-26 01:29:50 · answer #6 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they're not reliable and therefore would introduce "reasonable doubt" into a court case.
If you've got the evidence, you don't need the polygraph.
2007-03-26 00:57:52 · answer #7 · answered by Morgy 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
because materializing such procedure of test would bring more chaos as will as conflict of an investigation result for the same is not accurate and legally more accepted.
2007-03-26 02:08:48 · answer #8 · answered by manok j 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its not an exact science and it can be beaten, and it can also be read wrong a highly nervous person will show up as guilty when they are not.
2007-03-26 01:07:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no don't do that amanda
2007-03-26 02:27:35 · answer #10 · answered by ilovedadq 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋