heart problems and various mental attitudes makes them unreliableWhy can't the results of a lie detector test be used in court?
then why would they ask anyone to take one and why would anyone agree to do so? Its not scientifically accurate and its results could weigh against you in public opinion
I'm under the impression that the cops ask you to take one. You don't have to if you don't want to, but they let everyone know you refused
I'm under the impression that the cops ask you to take one. You don't have to if you don't want to, but they let everyone know you refused
Why can't the results of a lie detector test be used in court?
I'm under the impression that the cops ask you to take one. You don't have to if you don't want to, but they let everyone know you refused
the fact that its not scientifically valid is an interesting point given the report by the US Academy of Science that with the exception of DNA (which comes from medical science rather than the justice system) virtually no forensic "science" stands up to scientific standards or has been tested to scientific standards. For instance fingerprint analysis which in spite of the "experts" argument was shown to be fatally flawed during the Madrid bombing case
...that with the exception of DNA
distortions of the statistical certainty of the DNA evidence. I found instances that looked like fudging of results, to fit the prosecution's theory of the case.
No such body of prisoners exists. The link you posted is to a group that uses DNA testing to free innocents wrongly convicted - they use it because it is far more reliable than any other form of evidence, and can be used to contradict even an overwhelming body of other kinds of evidence.and now think of the thousand of innocent men who are in jail thanks to the "foolproof" DNA testing
then why would they ask anyone to take one and why would anyone agree to do so? Its not scientifically accurate and its results could weigh against you in public opinion
The problem with fingerprints is that not all forensics labs use the same standards to make their determinations as to who they belong to. Next, most people don't have their fingerprints in the national or even local databases. So unless you can catch the guilty party to compare prints with your just SOL.
Lie detectors are pseudoscientific voodoo. Countless scientific studies at universities have shown them to not work very well (although there is no shortage of people who make money from them, and not surprisingly those people tend to claim that they work super). Simply search for "polygraph review" in google scholar for plenty of references.then why would they ask anyone to take one and why would anyone agree to do so? Its not scientifically accurate and its results could weigh against you in public opinion
No, the polygraph isn't admissible because it fails to pass the Daubert Standard, a rule that say such evidence can't be admitted if it's not generally accepted by science as valid and accurate. If actual scientists (rather than just the people who make money selling polygraphs) ever reached a consensus that polygraphs actually worked, they could be admitted as evidence in the same way as any other forensic evidence. But, as discussed above, most scientists agree that lie detectors are pseudoscientific bullshit.One of the main reasons polygraphs are not admissible is because the accused has a Constitutional right to confront the evidence before him. However, in a polygraph there is no actual evidence. There's some ambiguous data and a report by a polygraph examiner giving his opinion that you lied. It amounts to hearsay.
The guy who created the first Polygraph test machine, William Marston, also created the Personal Profile System DiSC.No, the polygraph isn't admissible because it fails to pass the Daubert Standard, a rule that say such evidence can't be admitted if it's not generally accepted by science as valid and accurate. If actual scientists (rather than just the people who make money selling polygraphs) ever reached a consensus that polygraphs actually worked, they could be admitted as evidence in the same way as any other forensic evidence. But, as discussed above, most scientists agree that lie detectors are pseudoscientific bullshit.