Is it possible that lie-detector technology will evolve to a point where it's admissable in a court of law?

Answer 1

Actually, many jurisdictions already allow polygraph evidence in their courts. Properly administered polygraph examinations, (emphasis on properly administered) have an accuracy and reliability rate that significantly exceeds that of your average eyewitness testimony. Since we routinely allow eyewitness testimony knowing its flaws and the fact that jurors put an extraordinary amount of emphasis on it, I would much rather rely on the results of a PROPERLY ADMINISTERED polygraph than an eyewitness any day.

Answer 2

First, you should call it what it is: it is not a "lie-detector." That is a colloquialism developed by the media and is a total misrepresentation of what the device is and what it does.

A lie is a thought inside a person's mind. There are no machines that can read thoughts, therefore there cannot be a "lie detector" (unless or until such a machine is developed, that is).

It's called a polygraph and all it does is read four body outputs (heart rate, blood pressure, respiration and galvanic response) and graph them (poly = many). The polygrapher than makes some educated guesses (and that's all they really are) about what the graphs mean in response to questions. The assumption (note that word) is that when a person lies they will subconsciously experience the "fight or flight" syndrome and this will be reflected in those four areas. That is why the are not admissable in court; they are not objective tests; two different polygraphers can read the same graphs and derive different results and it's all based on an assumption that may or may not hold true for everyone.

I have known people to flat-out beat a polygraph, lying through their teeth. It's junk science.

In answer to your question, no. Unless someone figures out how to read minds.

Answer 3

I doubt it, because people can learn how the machine works, and control their emotions and physical responses to fool it. Also, people may be nervous about something else, and the lie detector falsely thinks they are lying when they are just afraid that if they tell the truth, something bad will happen (i.e. they get beat up or killed). Lie detector technology cannot read the mind, but only detect certain chemical and electrical impulses in the body. Different thoughts can trigger a similar response.

Humans have a great deal of control over the functions of their bodies. It's just that most people are not trained to control their bodies. Some people, like certain monks, have a high level of control over there body via meditation and other techniques.

So, I doubt if it would be fool-proof enough to be evidence in court, although I am sure they would be able to improve it.

Answer 4

technologically - probably yes
politically - no

Technologically - The FBI, CIA, military and certain other government agencies already use polygraphs to give security clearances and to investigate breaches of security, etc. What do they know that the general public does not. However, right now it is still an art with inaccuracies but
advances are always occuring.. On the other hand, polygraphs are subject to interpretation... Overzealous prosecutors might put the fix in on a polygraph exam by indicating to the polygraph company that they might lose the government contract if they come up with the wrong result. And how many individuals cant come up with the money to pay for their own unbiased polygraph results?

Two differnet political camps politicians and lawyers will not want it admissable and civil rights people wont want it but for two different reasons, one dispicable and the other laudible.

Politicians, CEO's and Lawyers for obvious reasons want wiggle room that admissable accurate polygraphs might remove. On the other hand, money and subte coersion can bias the interpretation of the results.. Personally, I think that all politicians running for reelection should have to take a polygraph test with the major theme being, "Have you complied with your oath of office during your previous terms?"
Have you accepted any bribes or other compensation in exchange for your vote ?
While in office, did you take any actions contrary or detrimental to general publics interest?
Lastly, in reference to the previous 3 questions, do you believe that the majority of the general public would agree with your answers if they had full knowledge of the facts as you do?

On the other hand, Civil Rights groups would not want this invasion of privacy and yet another avenue for the government to exploit while oppressing individuals, for example, for political purposes.

The question you should be asking is, If it would be possible to create an infallible polygraph, would the general public want it admissable in court?

Well, thats my rant for the day!

Answer 5

No. Machinery and electronics will never be able to account for apprehension and anxiety that isn't based on the test subjects truthfulness.

Answer 6

Sure.

Once government FUNDS genetic research which determines if you are predetermined criminal, other methods delving into your DNA, and genetic background will be used.

Its a coming nightmare, but its what you get when you allow your government to fund such horrors.

Answer 7

I guess its possible, anything is possible but it doesn't seem likely in the near future.

Answer 8

Yes, it's possible.

But no one can predict with what certainty, or when.