I don't understand the law at all sometimes....like giving someone the option whether to take a lie detector

Question

I don't understand why a suspect is given the option of taking a lie detector test if they seem suspect.......I mean, shouldn't they have to take one if it seems that they might be guilty of something including holding information that might save someones life? I know that or I've heard that lie detectors are not 100% accurate.....but it looks so bad for the people who won't take one...they look guilty...how about that little 12 year old boy who is missing and his father won't take the test for instance.....so they just let him slide? your opinion please

Answer 1

Results from a lie detector test do not prove or disprove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and thus are inadmissible in most criminal courts. Since the evidence is inadmissible, there is no point in forcing someone to take a lie detector test. Lie detectors are horribly inaccurate and inconsistent. The results totally depend on the operator of the test, the mental condition of the suspect, and the ability of a suspect to control his/her physiological condition during the test. There are far too many variables to prove whether someone is lying or telling the truth from a lie detector test.

Secondly, suspects would be protected by their fifth amendment rights from taking such tests as they may be forced to say something that is self incriminating or the test itself may give inaccurate results that lead to self incrimination. Even if a person does lie and the detector picks it up, if the test was not taken by the suspect voluntarily, that evidence is likely inadmissible under the fifth amendment.

Basically, the reason that people are not forced to take lie detector tests has to do with the admissibility of that evidence in a criminal proceeding.

Answer 2

Amber, it is a ploy to obtain information.

While you have a right to remain silent --- few untrained individuals can do that for very long. Imagine being seated in a warm room that has a table, chairs, and a mirror. You are told to sit down and someone with speak with you --- the door is closed but you after a few minutes find that you cannot leave --- You do not have any idea why you were asked to come to this office.

Most people become defensive and they start a dialogue in their heads ---- When someone comes in and speaks to you --- you have been trained to reply and exchange information --- you do not often think that the person speaking to you is the enemy ---

So after a while --- some one tells you that your are lying and your are not Amber --- they offer a pseudo scientific device to prove that you are you --- you because of pride, poverty, lack of education, or hubris think you are smarter than the dolt who has spoken with you --- He offers a polygraph test --- you are then put into a even more weird situation with clips, blood pressure, et al and some drone who will ask you yes/no questions --- hoping that you will react to the banality of said questions with anger --- Your heart goes up --- your BP goes up your breathing go up and you are found guilty.

So to end this: never go to a police interview without a lawyer, whom you know and trust.

Answer 3

The law is the law, and it doesn't make exceptions. If you have the right to refuse, you have that right in every conceivable circumstance (unless otherwise proscribed by law). Claims for exception under 'public safety', 'national security', 'imminent threat', etc are all tools used by dictators to deny people the due process of law. That is why we almost always err on the side of civil liberties in this country.

BTW, you have the right to refuse because the 5th Amendment states that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

The 4th Amendment states that warrantless searches are also illegal. That is why compulsory DNA tests without a warrant are illegal, too.

Answer 4

The polygraph is a long long way from 100% accurate. Probably not more than 50%. It is dependent on how the operator reads the results.

You should never submit to one, they should not be allowed as evidence (and are not in some courts).

I always assume that people who agree to a polygraph test are sure they can beat it, not that they are innocent.