How many hours and pounds could have been saved over the years if we could cut to the chase a lot faster? It's proven to be pretty effective. Why doesn't it get used in questioning suspects? Is this considered an infringement on human rights - getting folk to tell the truth?
2007-09-09 07:32:00 · 12 answers · asked by wee stoater 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I think it's gone a bit beyond a pulse and sweat monitor attached to your finger. I saw a programme a few months ago that had extensive tests done which included brain scanning to monitor activity there - not something that even a controlled and calm liar on the outside can control. The technology is there and it would certainly make a bit if not huge difference to cases. Expensive but probably laid up against the cost of court and lawyer fees and imprisoning innocent people etc then worth money.
2007-09-09 07:50:08 · update #1
It is maybe not 100% accurate but how more accurate might it be than just cross examination? How accurate is that?
2007-09-09 07:58:32 · update #2
I'd say bring it in now!
I don't give a damn about human rights, that is exactly what is wrong with the present society, the obsession with human rights of terrorists, criminals and suspects. No one cares about all their victims.
Lie-detector tests are not 100% accurate, but are pretty close. Can certainly be used as corroborative evidence in prosecution.
2007-09-09 07:40:57 · answer #1 · answered by Calculus 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The fact that it is not 100% accurate would make me feel very uncomfortable about using it to convict, however to use it as a means of questioning may be useful but again as it is not 100% accurate it could cause more problems - the human rights brigade will be in there for start off.
I agree re the cross examination I just feel that anything that is not 100% is too risky - of course if it helps to get 100% then I owuld be all for it.
2007-09-09 07:54:56 · answer #2 · answered by carlyan2 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are drawbacks to the lie detector testing equipment in that these devices can be beaten by a correctly trained person. This means, should the lie detector become mandator, then a lot of members of the criminal underworld are going to train up so as to beat the machine.
I'm not even sure if a lie detector test is acceptable in English Law by and English Court.
I am not opposed to the lie detector test as such, but question it's accuracy.
The most accurate method of detection, obviously after the usual finger prints and now DNA, is actually carried out by a trained interviewer who knows all about body language.
For example, when a person tells a lie, there will be a flickering seen in the lower lid of [I think the left] eye, a twitch. There are other body language signs too, which indicate that a person is telling a lie.
Here's the latest on the world of lie detector testing : -
The Polygraph - Detecting Lies and Finding Truth, polygraph lie ...The Polygraph - Detecting Lies and Finding Truth, polygraph lie detector testing uk, polygraph. Association of British Investigators ...
http://www.theabi.org.uk/press/p0307.htm
BBC NEWS | England | Police consider lie detector testsPolygraph lie detector test. The test is said to be more accurate than the ... the technology - the first time it would be available for forces in the UK. ...
http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2944563.stm
Airline passengers face lie detector tests - Telegraph
Get the latest UK news and World news from the Telegraph. ... through Russia will soon have to take a lie detector test as part of new security measures. ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/06/wlie06.xml
From the above, it looks like the lie detector test is going to be very much part of our lives, but only if we are taken to a police station or maybe some airlines will insist on us taking a test before boarding. Another hour in departure at the airport.
This next site is probably out of date, but may be worth a visit if only to find out how things were ten years ago concerening the lie detector debate : -
New Law Journal index 1997—disclosure, English law and the European Convention on Human Rights, 1306 ..... Death of the "lie detector"? Brian McConnell, 1134 ...
http://www.new-law-journal.co.uk/Index/index1997.htm
This next site looks pretty dated, but deals swith a lot of UK legal issues including bad naming someone on the Internet for which we can now all get done. Well, just try to avoid names. All those using the name Mc.Kann etc may be in trouble later on if etc...
News A senior court official has rebuffed efforts by Class Law, the legal firm, ... A Norfolk solicitor who agreed to falsify a lie detector test in order to ...
http://www.unjustis.co.uk/News/News_Mar2006.htm
2007-09-09 07:54:16 · answer #3 · answered by Dragoner 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Lie detectors have improved immensely.
Now they have lie detectors that see heat of the blood vessels in your face.
Your brain involuntarily floods these vessels with blood when you lie. The questioner is not involved as the computer is in control.
98% effective.
Add a mix of sodium pentathol and ethanol and the accuracy goes up to 99.6%.
But it is an infringement of human rights. Everyone is entitled to their own lies.
2007-09-09 07:53:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
the Justice system works on the basis of 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' and it works it is the Duty of all Law enforcement agencies to investigate to a point where they believe this is so and then to charge the perpetrator of the crime leaving it then to the Courts to dispense justice
the Lie detector is Flawed it can be beaten and that too has been proved beyond reasonable doubt so the answer is NO
2007-09-09 07:54:51 · answer #5 · answered by alex hephaestion 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is possible to cheat a lie detector test, I think it's only 95% accurate and can no longer be deemed admissible evidence.
2007-09-09 07:37:54 · answer #6 · answered by Nickynackynoo 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it is effective. A practised liar or someone who is cool under pressure can outwit a lie detector test everytime.
It's made up to be scarier than it is.
2007-09-09 07:39:54 · answer #7 · answered by kiteeze 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why can some people commit crime with no emotion or others with maticulous planning. That is i think the difference why it may work on some and not others.Many commit crime and have the ability to convince themselves they didn,t do it,so its questionable in itself Stay lucky
2007-09-09 07:52:45 · answer #8 · answered by charlie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No one who understands how the thing works.
It measures the anxiety the average person
feels when lying.
In a high anxiety situation like criminal
interrogation, its accuracy is open to
question, and since the questioner can
control anxiety levels easily, it would be
open to abuse.
2007-09-09 07:42:51 · answer #9 · answered by Irv S 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are not admissable in court for a reason. Too many people know how to cheat them.
2007-09-09 07:49:51 · answer #10 · answered by sensible_man 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋