Lie Detectors?

Question

Who else thinks that we should develope and use lie detectors more in the U K to speed up the trials of criminals or will the lawyers object as it will eat away at there fees

Answer 1

Lie detectors are not admissable in the UK courts as they are less than 60% accurate so they would need alot of fine tuning first...

Answer 2

I don't know about the UK, but in the US there is a reason that lie detector results are not admissible as evidence. A lie detector measures your physical reaction to a question, which doesn't necessarily mean the person is lying. Secondly, if a suspect is a pathological liar they can "lie" and still pass; there are also several ways to mess with the results. In short for those reasons it would increase the chances that an innocent person gets imprisioned, which would be unfair.

Answer 3

I don't agree that we should either use them or that it would speed things up if we did. Lie detector results are not proof of anything really. They give a fairly reliable indication that there may or may not be something wrong with the answer you gave to a particular question. Because there are doubts about the science defence lawyers would have lots of fun showing why they did not mean very much in relation to their client.

Answer 4

The use of polygraphs (lie detectors) has been proven repeatedly to be unreliable as evidence. It would serve only to slow the trial process down by adding unecessary and ineffective, not to mention expensive equipment to the courtrrom. There would be no affect whatsoever on lawyers fees.

Answer 5

Lie detectors or polygraphs to call them properly aren't that accurate in real life situations, at most they offer 75% accuracy though some researchers claim up to 95% for eye following methods, however counter studies show less than 35% accuracy.

Frankly they aren't needed. The last thing the UK needs to do is follow the US justice (read injustice) practices.

Answer 6

Lie detectors are highly inaccurate and are only used as a means of going in the right direction of questioning. They are very rarely admissible as evidence and would cause alot of appeals.

Answer 7

The results of a lie detector test are inadmissible as evidence in both UK and US courts of law (I don't know about other countries). The polygraph test itself is and can only be used as an 'indication of probable guilt or innocence'.

Answer 8

It's to help police in investigation but not very useful in court. A lie detector is based on fluctuations in graph as such indirect proof whether a man is lying.

Answer 9

Of course lawyers would not allow use of lie detectors, they don't work. Never allow yourself to be hooked up to one of these things, they are subjective and totally influenced by the operator.

Answer 10

lie detectors are good but only as good as the person that interprets them and administers the test