You'd have to repeal the Fifth Amendment first, so even if we had such a device it wouldn't be all that useful.
Lie Detector Test
- Thread starter Orleander
- Start date
You'd have to repeal the Fifth Amendment first, so even if we had such a device it wouldn't be all that useful.
@ Billvon,
I think it seems impossible to build, but if a lie detector could be made that was 100% accurate and could never be fooled then that amendment would seem silly. You would not be concerned about a fair trial or "due process" if your guilt or innocence was fact from the machine.
The constitution/Bill of Rights can be changed or we would not even have amendments.
I have said in both my posts that as long as people can forget, be brainwashed, or have insanity substitute memories then even a seemingly foolproof lie detector might not be accurate. It would need to be 100% foolproof to replace the courts.
I think it seems impossible to build, but if a lie detector could be made that was 100% accurate and could never be fooled then that amendment would seem silly. You would not be concerned about a fair trial or "due process" if your guilt or innocence was fact from the machine.
The constitution/Bill of Rights can be changed or we would not even have amendments.
I have said in both my posts that as long as people can forget, be brainwashed, or have insanity substitute memories then even a seemingly foolproof lie detector might not be accurate. It would need to be 100% foolproof to replace the courts.
That's a tough sell, since the primary goal of the Bill of Rights is to protect people from an overreaching government. Telling people "we have this great technology that gives the government more power to convict you of crimes - so you don't need those protections any more" would be a hard case to make.
@ Billvon,
if it was 100% accurate I am sure there could be no valid arguments not to use it. I would be a hard sell as I can NEVER see this being possible. I'd need to try it myself, etc.
I am not even saying it would not take many years to accomplish. Perhaps even half a century.
I live in a zero tolerance society when it comes to violence, and know many people getting screwed by these policies. One guy I know had his senile grandfather call the police on him during an Alzheimer episode and is now barred from caring for his grandfather for years while this goes through the courts. I also have little faith in the legal system and can see someone like hi spending time in jail. I have seen a legitimate baseball injury cause a woman to lose custody of her son. I was a neighbor. I had a trampoline accident give me a huge shiner when I was a kid and could have as easily been me if these policies existed 20 years earlier.
So I would look forward to accurate justice. I think jails are full of innocents around the planet. I even think the flawed law detectors of today are likely more accurate than todays legal systems and police.
I agree it would be a hard see, but we are talking about a hypothetical machine that makes no errors. It would win out over objections eventually.
Look at your "Right to bear arms". That was written in the age of muskets. Oops.
if it was 100% accurate I am sure there could be no valid arguments not to use it. I would be a hard sell as I can NEVER see this being possible. I'd need to try it myself, etc.
I am not even saying it would not take many years to accomplish. Perhaps even half a century.
I live in a zero tolerance society when it comes to violence, and know many people getting screwed by these policies. One guy I know had his senile grandfather call the police on him during an Alzheimer episode and is now barred from caring for his grandfather for years while this goes through the courts. I also have little faith in the legal system and can see someone like hi spending time in jail. I have seen a legitimate baseball injury cause a woman to lose custody of her son. I was a neighbor. I had a trampoline accident give me a huge shiner when I was a kid and could have as easily been me if these policies existed 20 years earlier.
So I would look forward to accurate justice. I think jails are full of innocents around the planet. I even think the flawed law detectors of today are likely more accurate than todays legal systems and police.
I agree it would be a hard see, but we are talking about a hypothetical machine that makes no errors. It would win out over objections eventually.
Look at your "Right to bear arms". That was written in the age of muskets. Oops.
The easiest one is "government should not have the power to look into people's minds." I, for one, would not want to give the government that much power; I don't trust them with it.
Yet you think people will become more honest/less likely to abuse power if you give them more power?
It's not the tool, it is how it's used.
Have you ever lied? Ever driven over the speed limit? Ever wished harm on someone else? Ever clicked "I agree" to a user agreement without reading the entire thing? Cheated on your wife? Thought about cheating on your wife?
Do you want all that information available to the government?
@ Billvon,
Good point. I concede the argument.
I would want a middle ground though where the fifth amendment (Your Country) guaranteed I had the choice to use either system, and that these detectors could only be used for innocent or guilty answers in severe crimes where jail is on the table. I don't think the Government should have the freedom to use it to hear your every thought as you suggest.
If you were innocent wouldn't you want that proven, over trusting a lawyer against a pile of incorrect evidence against you. Innocent people would want the machine, and guilty people would want the court.
Here is another solution.
Give everyone their day in court, and after 1 year of jail an innocent person could be cleared with the machine. If there was not at least some penalty there would be no hiring of lawyers by innocents, and the guilty would.... bah nevermind.. there is no good solution.
Maybe the best way is to limit the device to use only for "guilty or not guilty" questions.
This is similar to a "Big Brother" Camera system i am in favor of. Cover every road, park, home, and even willing people, cars, trucks, etc with cameras that record everything and send the compressed data to centralized computers (backed up in various locations). You would not want a police officer to use it to see if his wife is cheating on him, so I propose it is only accessible AFTER a serious crime has been committed (under court orde)r to get the various camera angles and follow the guilty party all the way home from the crime scene, etc.
Why don't we have crime cameras throughout the city. I wouldn't care as long as the police couldn't spy on you.
Good point. I concede the argument.
I would want a middle ground though where the fifth amendment (Your Country) guaranteed I had the choice to use either system, and that these detectors could only be used for innocent or guilty answers in severe crimes where jail is on the table. I don't think the Government should have the freedom to use it to hear your every thought as you suggest.
If you were innocent wouldn't you want that proven, over trusting a lawyer against a pile of incorrect evidence against you. Innocent people would want the machine, and guilty people would want the court.
Here is another solution.
Give everyone their day in court, and after 1 year of jail an innocent person could be cleared with the machine. If there was not at least some penalty there would be no hiring of lawyers by innocents, and the guilty would.... bah nevermind.. there is no good solution.
Maybe the best way is to limit the device to use only for "guilty or not guilty" questions.
This is similar to a "Big Brother" Camera system i am in favor of. Cover every road, park, home, and even willing people, cars, trucks, etc with cameras that record everything and send the compressed data to centralized computers (backed up in various locations). You would not want a police officer to use it to see if his wife is cheating on him, so I propose it is only accessible AFTER a serious crime has been committed (under court orde)r to get the various camera angles and follow the guilty party all the way home from the crime scene, etc.
Why don't we have crime cameras throughout the city. I wouldn't care as long as the police couldn't spy on you.
That's actually not a bad compromise. Use it only for people found guilty, only after some time in jail, and only if they agree to the test. Thus it could not be used to convict someone, but it could be used to clear people convicted of crimes. This would have the inevitable result of juries thinking "well, we better just convict the guy and let the machine figure it out" but they won't do that as readily if it means putting him in jail for a year (or six months or whatever.)
There's the rub.
Because they can afford to reject good applicants and hire lying applicants. As long as the test is better than 50/50, overall they get a higher (average) chance of hiring a truthful employee.
In a court of law, the questions would be confined and limited and not all invasive as you seem to believe it would be. If your paying a lawyer he had better be making sure your rights are not being infringed upon. Also, speaking for myself, I'd rather not wait till I was falsely convicted before I had a real chance to prove my innocence. You also, have to remember for every falsely convicted person there is a guilty person still running free to commit more crimes.
Your fears may not be groundless, but they can be dealt with and protections put into place. Also, about cameras in public areas. When you are in public you do not have any rights to expect privacy. So what's the problem you are talking about?
At first, yes. But if the DHS found out it could screen EVERY SINGLE PERSON in an airport to find out if they were terrorists? And do it 100% effectively? Of course they'd use it. If police could ask every person they stopped if they had been drinking? (or speeding) Their costs would go way down, their income (from tickets) would go way up. "We'll make the roads safer and lower your taxes!" Who wouldn't vote for that?
If a movie theater could screen every person who enters to ensure there are no more Aurora-style massacres? If schools could screen everyone so they could identify mass murderers at the school doors? Etc etc.
Right. And one of those rights is to not speak against yourself (the Fifth Amendment.)
"Either confess to the crime or we'll put on the World Wide Web the picture of you with that prostitute! I don't care if you did it or not, just confess and this whole problem will go away."
Cameras may be coming one way or the other. I think hidden personal Cameras that send their data every 5-10-20 minutes to secured locations could be used to prevent Rape, Murder, etc. The girl could just say, "Stop it!", I have the Viewing Security App on my phone and this past 5 minutes has been forwarded to the police so stop now or face charges. That sort of thing.
The technology is already way past due.
As you people have mentioned. There is already abuses likely taking place with the large camera access already at the disposal of police.
I would like to see Camera access granted to police in ONLY these conditions.
a) A crime has already been committed and the Police gat a Court Order to access the Cameras linked to that crime.
b) Facial Recognition software recognizes a Terrorist or Fugitive.
c) Adapted Facial Recognition software type program that sees body language and recognizes a visual call for help which is waving arms above head, and then crossing them across chest repeated, or some other distress call (yet to be designed) of the future. It would be sad if you could not alert police you are being attacked.
d) Someone presses a panic button on the camera which may only be possible for personal cameras, or a panic buttons strewn throughout the city.
Those should be the only way to access the Government crime camera system. This would be easy to implement and could reduce crime overnight.
We have the technology.
The technology is already way past due.
As you people have mentioned. There is already abuses likely taking place with the large camera access already at the disposal of police.
I would like to see Camera access granted to police in ONLY these conditions.
a) A crime has already been committed and the Police gat a Court Order to access the Cameras linked to that crime.
b) Facial Recognition software recognizes a Terrorist or Fugitive.
c) Adapted Facial Recognition software type program that sees body language and recognizes a visual call for help which is waving arms above head, and then crossing them across chest repeated, or some other distress call (yet to be designed) of the future. It would be sad if you could not alert police you are being attacked.
d) Someone presses a panic button on the camera which may only be possible for personal cameras, or a panic buttons strewn throughout the city.
Those should be the only way to access the Government crime camera system. This would be easy to implement and could reduce crime overnight.
We have the technology.
============
CCTV boom has failed to slash crime, say police
Owen Bowcott
The Guardian, Monday 5 May 2008
Massive investment in CCTV cameras to prevent crime in the UK has failed to have a significant impact, despite billions of pounds spent on the new technology, a senior police officer piloting a new database has warned. Only 3% of street robberies in London were solved using CCTV images, despite the fact that Britain has more security cameras than any other country in Europe.
=============
I had heard they were trying it in the UK. I still think it can do better. I mean how could a criminal get away if there are cameras all over? I still see it happening even if only personal security everywhere. 3% is pretty sad.
Why do we still have police stakeouts, when all they need to do is plant a camera into the ground connected to a phone network and they can stake out 20 places at the same time.
Why do we still have police stakeouts, when all they need to do is plant a camera into the ground connected to a phone network and they can stake out 20 places at the same time.
because a person can adapt to a situation which arises where as a camera can't?
what if someone puts something in front of the camera inadvertently?
what if the people without knowing it outside the field of vision of the camera? etc
LaurieAG
Registered Senior Member
Kwhilborn, if a brain can forget it can also remember.
In my state paper today, it's byline is 'committed to accurate, fair and fearless publication of news and commentary', in the section called 'The Verdict' all the commentators gave 100% approval to our current federal government, which has just announced an election campaign, on every issue raised, even though 2 cabinet ministers have resigned and one MP has been arrested and it has not even been a week since the announcement was made.
Now while the spin doctors and spin barristers might secure the support of the vocal minority of the states population susceptible to claims made by nigerian scammers and the like, the majority of the population is getting fed up with the way we are being treated like idiots by certain major parts of the media and a federal government without substance that is entirely based on spin.
That's about the most effective lie detector test available to joe public these days.
@ LaurieAG,
What if a person dreams they were molested by their parents growing up? Could a dream memory be detected in a test that has you remembering memories?
I use that example because I've heard of that kind of thing being possible.
This is a stupid example but when I was in grade 5 I stole a kids Eraser. I swore up and down I didn't steal it and even told my teacher I didn't. I honestly could not remember stealing it. Maybe I replaced my memory somehow, but when I got home I found the Eraser in my possession. I had stolen it.
Stupid little memory but that type of thing could play a part in lie detectors. I could have passed a lie detector test saying I did not steal the Eraser.
I am glad to say my life of crime ended there.
I think?!?
Maybe I steal daily and just repress the memories?
What about people who have memories wiped by electroshock therapy?
That is in reply to your first line
I completely do not understand any of this or how it relates to lie detecting?
How does any of that make any rational sense? It's missing some sort of plot? I'm guessing that's just part of the story.
What if a person dreams they were molested by their parents growing up? Could a dream memory be detected in a test that has you remembering memories?
I use that example because I've heard of that kind of thing being possible.
This is a stupid example but when I was in grade 5 I stole a kids Eraser. I swore up and down I didn't steal it and even told my teacher I didn't. I honestly could not remember stealing it. Maybe I replaced my memory somehow, but when I got home I found the Eraser in my possession. I had stolen it.
Stupid little memory but that type of thing could play a part in lie detectors. I could have passed a lie detector test saying I did not steal the Eraser.
I am glad to say my life of crime ended there.
I think?!?
Maybe I steal daily and just repress the memories?
What about people who have memories wiped by electroshock therapy?
That is in reply to your first line
I completely do not understand any of this or how it relates to lie detecting?
How does any of that make any rational sense? It's missing some sort of plot? I'm guessing that's just part of the story.
OH.
And how do you help explain shows like Mury using lie detectors to determine a cheating "person"? They ruin a life if its wrong.
@ R1D2,
First of all
There is a big difference between DNA Paternity testing and lie detectors..
The shows that deal with lie detectors though are largely staged/motivated by money. If you can think of a way for you and your spouse to argue on national tv it could help you earn $4000+$4000=$8000. Just write in with why you will argue.
Don't worry about the people you see on reality shows like that. They are there by choice and know the deal.
Look at how much these people get paid to be on these shows.
People would fabricate stories just to get payoffs from Jerry Springer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5ynvUu7qUQ
MAURY...
Don't forget the Guests/Actors on these shows make $4000-$5000 each per show.
Do you get sad when someone on Judge Judy has to pay $2000 to the Plaintiff. Well don't because they get at least $4000 just for being there, so even the losing party always wins.
The guests on Maury are THRILLED to be there. $4000+ is a nice payday for a days work. Anyone on the Maury show is well prepared and likely scripted. They can easily deny giving DNA or appearing on the show.
First of all
There is a big difference between DNA Paternity testing and lie detectors..
The shows that deal with lie detectors though are largely staged/motivated by money. If you can think of a way for you and your spouse to argue on national tv it could help you earn $4000+$4000=$8000. Just write in with why you will argue.
Don't worry about the people you see on reality shows like that. They are there by choice and know the deal.
Look at how much these people get paid to be on these shows.
People would fabricate stories just to get payoffs from Jerry Springer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5ynvUu7qUQ
MAURY...
Don't forget the Guests/Actors on these shows make $4000-$5000 each per show.
Do you get sad when someone on Judge Judy has to pay $2000 to the Plaintiff. Well don't because they get at least $4000 just for being there, so even the losing party always wins.
The guests on Maury are THRILLED to be there. $4000+ is a nice payday for a days work. Anyone on the Maury show is well prepared and likely scripted. They can easily deny giving DNA or appearing on the show.