We haven't received enough votes with gender data to show this graph yet.
We will show the graph as soon as we have enough votes!
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
While having no expertise in the area, it seems to me that there are a range of non invasive technologies which are capable of providing a far better assessment of whether defendants and witnesses are telling the truth than simply listening to evidence. It appears to me that in most cases there are two relevant issues 1. Did the accused do what he/she is accused of, and 2. Were there mitigating cicumstances. I believe technology could in most cases get to the truth quickly, inexpensively and more accurately. It may not provide 100% certainty but clearly the current processes do not. Our current system seems to exist to provide employment for the legal profession rather than providing just and cost effective outcomes.
I don't think people should be forced to take a lie detector test and I also think they can be faulty sometimes. There should be other proof in addition to/other than a lie detector test that would determine whether a witness is telling the truth or not.
And too easily register "lies" from nervous individuals. Hook me up to one of those things, ask me if I murdered JFK. I'd deny it (born 14 months before) - it'd come back and say I lied because I'd panic when asked a question like that. Heart rate, respiration and sweating would all increase.
[1 point]2 years ago by sillynillyReplyEdited 2 years ago by sillynilly
No they're not. They say I'm lying when I'm not. When I proved I wasn't lying the pig wouldn't even apologize for believing the machine before he believed me. BTW I never call them pigs except when I am totally pissed by their self-important attitudes and/or total callousness.
The accuracy is debatable and they can be beaten. Also, if someone believes something they are saying is true, they should get a positive result, even if they are mistaken. I think allowing them to be admissable introduces into evidence information that gives the (false) impression of being infallible and could unfairly weight evidence to one side or another.
Found an interesting writeup on the subject in Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph ). The concensus in the scientific community is that the required level of accuracy is not there and that there is significant risk of "false positives". Guess we are stuck for now with the traditional approach notwithstanding its subjectivity and inaccuracies. It is interesting to reflect on what the reaction of the law will be WHEN a reliable test is available.
Australia
While having no expertise in the area, it seems to me that there are a range of non invasive technologies which are capable of providing a far better assessment of whether defendants and witnesses are telling the truth than simply listening to evidence. It appears to me that in most cases there are two relevant issues 1. Did the accused do what he/she is accused of, and 2. Were there mitigating cicumstances. I believe technology could in most cases get to the truth quickly, inexpensively and more accurately. It may not provide 100% certainty but clearly the current processes do not. Our current system seems to exist to provide employment for the legal profession rather than providing just and cost effective outcomes.
Would violate the 5th amendment, in my opinion...
The right to lie?
I don't think people should be forced to take a lie detector test and I also think they can be faulty sometimes. There should be other proof in addition to/other than a lie detector test that would determine whether a witness is telling the truth or not.
Lie detectors are too easy to beat.
And too easily register "lies" from nervous individuals. Hook me up to one of those things, ask me if I murdered JFK. I'd deny it (born 14 months before) - it'd come back and say I lied because I'd panic when asked a question like that. Heart rate, respiration and sweating would all increase.
Spot on. I agree with you 100%.
No they're not. They say I'm lying when I'm not. When I proved I wasn't lying the pig wouldn't even apologize for believing the machine before he believed me. BTW I never call them pigs except when I am totally pissed by their self-important attitudes and/or total callousness.
The accuracy is debatable and they can be beaten. Also, if someone believes something they are saying is true, they should get a positive result, even if they are mistaken. I think allowing them to be admissable introduces into evidence information that gives the (false) impression of being infallible and could unfairly weight evidence to one side or another.
No inconclusive scientific evidence can be considered as valid and therefore can not be admissable. Reasonable doubt.
Not to mention sociopaths could beat it every time.
No. Lie detectors are far from infallible, and so are the operators. That is why they are not allowed as testimony in so many courts.
Found an interesting writeup on the subject in Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph ). The concensus in the scientific community is that the required level of accuracy is not there and that there is significant risk of "false positives". Guess we are stuck for now with the traditional approach notwithstanding its subjectivity and inaccuracies. It is interesting to reflect on what the reaction of the law will be WHEN a reliable test is available.