Won't it be easier to convict murderers and other serious offenders?
2007-06-27 08:08:02 · 12 answers · asked by Daisy 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Because they are not 100 % accurate.
One can "fool" a lie detector. Typically sociopaths can do this.
A lie detector does nothing more than detect body temp, heart rate/pulse, and breathing patterns. Typically when one lies their heart rate gets faster, their body temp goes up, and their breathing becomes very shallow and rapid. But if you either believe what you are stating is the truth, or that you are a person that doesn't feel any remorse for their actions or experience guilt, then you will "pass" a lie detector test.
Example: Ted Bundy passed a lie detector test on 2 of the murders he committed. So is he innocent?
2007-06-27 08:14:17 · answer #1 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but it may make it easier to catch a petty thief. The serious offenders already have enough evidence stacked up against themselves; they are going down, make no mistake about it. Some slip through, but for the most part, they are done. The conviction process is kind of like buying a car! Everyone is trying to get the best deal. That is why it seems so drawn out. They are not deliberating about a conviction, but what to get out of that conviction. Check out a real trial on Court TV for instance, you'll see what I mean.
2007-06-27 15:29:28 · answer #2 · answered by Califiyah 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are sometimes, but they're still fallible (especially when the subject is under stress). A lie detector that isn't 100% doesn't quite prove anything beyond the shadow of a doubt. They might get more convictions, but some of those convictions might be innocent men.
2007-06-27 15:12:35 · answer #3 · answered by Beardog 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have factors that can alter the outcome such as:
person administering test is he fully functional (not drug/alcohol) bias
the calibrations on the machine and sensitivity
It can be beat even if you are guilty
Personally, I am against lie detectors.
I really believe that the cops use the evidence whether truth or lie to convict innocent people. Manipulating the system to make the quota or cash...
2007-06-27 15:15:12 · answer #4 · answered by Patches6 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The other commentators are right, it's because lie detector tests are not sufficiently reliable to be trusted in court.
The rules of evidence (the rules that you look to when you want to get evidence introduce) are really specific about the evidence that you can introduce about the ultimate issue of fact that's there for the jury to decide (i.e. about guilt). For example, we also also don't allow experts to come in and say "from my evaluation of the evidence, I think he did it" because we leave those questions for the jury as well. We'll let the expert testify about how fast he thinks the car was going based on the evidence available, or we'll let a doctor testify about the injuries that led to a victim's death, but we leave it for the jury to decide whether or not to trust the doctor or the expert. Because lie detector tests are manipulable and unreliable, we think it would be unfair and overly prejudicial to introduce lie detector test results to the jury because it doesn't truly allow them to decide whether or not to trust the test (like you would a doctor or expert).
2007-06-27 18:59:26 · answer #5 · answered by tails 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lie detectors are FAR from foolproof. False positives (the person is really telling the truth, but the detector says he/she is lying) and false negatives (the person is lying but the detector says he/she is telling the truth) are VERY common.
If lie detectors worked every time, it would be good to use them at trials, but the accuracy of current lie detectors isn't nearly good enough to prove a case one way or the other.
2007-06-27 15:16:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Too unreliable. The "lie detector" is actually the operator, who is making judgments about the significance of the physiological changes measured by the machine.
2007-06-27 15:13:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
mis between not being reliable and lawyers protecting themselves. lie detectors in court means less need for trials.
2007-06-27 15:17:16 · answer #8 · answered by blktan23 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They are not reliable. People have lied and beaten the tests. And we have the Fifth Amendment. A defendant cannot be forced to incriminate himself.
2007-06-27 15:16:14 · answer #9 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The results are not reliable and it is considered likely that jurors can be over confident of the integrity of the results.
2007-06-27 15:13:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋