What i am saying is think about it.
If we was to compare lie detector tests with juriea would tget have a better sucess rate than juries.
The obvious answer would be yes.
Think percentages people.
Innocent people are getting locked up everyday.
Be it because of sheltered jury members,tampering with evidence pre conceived stereotypes etc.heck even if a jury member woke up on the wrong side of the bed
How can we compare anything without any tests being done?
You are asking people to do the impossible.
FACT
But would lie detector tests be better than juries thats my point ??
Polygraph testing has not been demonstrated to be a reliable method for determining truth. At best, skilled operators in certain circumstances can produce better than chance results. Someone showing typical physiological signs of distress when responding to certain questions does not indicate they are necessarily being deceitful.
While undertaking my degree I discovered that I'm fairly adept at fooling a polygraph, and most sociopaths/psychopaths would easily fool a polygraph too.
While undergoing my Trial, I discovered that my Jury were very adept at being arses and not paying attention. They couldn't reach even a majority verdict.
The CPS agreed that they were arses, or may have just been sore losers, and initiated a second Trial.
The second Jury didn't pay attention either (nobody took notes, for example). They were bored out of their minds.
Since, I think, it was Friday afternoon and they were happy to find me Guilty, for a crime I did not commit, and bugger off pronto.
I am not a great fan of the Jury System.
Nor 'The Court'
Nor of the CPS
Nor of the Police Officer who arrested me, for spurious reason, then lied to the Custody Sergeant about the details of my arrest and later in my Trials.
Of course, us Crims, we all say that.
"You're all fekkin' Guilty" as a nice Prison Officer told my cellmate, when he was pleading my case for a 5 minute telephone call, for me, to my brief.
(You have to beg for most things. Staff Shortages override Human Rights)
A lie detector test cant analyse evidence, or make a decision based on hearing the evidence.
Can't confirm, but I suspect the OP has very little understanding of how a court case works or how legal system actually works. Given other threads, he is possibly naive beyond belief. Just a thought
Can't confirm, but I suspect the OP has very little understanding of how a court case works or how legal system actually works. Given other threads, he is possibly naive beyond belief. Just a thought
Lie detector tests have been shown time and time again to be pretty much useless as all they do is measure changes in heart rate, breathing and perspiration (at best) and how it changes between statements, it basically comes down to how the person running the test reads the results.
You can "fool" it any number of ways getting both false positive and negative results even without wanting to, and if you are a good liar, trained, or have certain psychological conditions you'll make a mockery of it.
At best it might make someone who is holding something back tell you because they believe in them.
FACT.
Anyone else noticed this?
Isnt it about time we switched and started using them.
Ive witnessed it with my own eyes innocent people being found guilty and guilty people found innocent.
Should we switch?
Can't confirm, but I suspect the OP has very little understanding of how a court case works or how legal system actually works. Given other threads, he is possibly naive beyond belief. Just a thought
I probably know more about the legal system than you
I probably know more about the legal system than you
And which legal system would that be, as there are lots of differnt areas of law, which area of law are you saying you know more about. But here is real fact. Polygraph testing has not been demonstrated to be a reliable method for determining truth. At best, skilled operators in certain circumstances can produce better than chance results. Someone showing typical physiological signs of distress when responding to certain questions does not indicate they are necessarily being deceitful.
I probably know more about the legal system than you
You were commending the youths that attacked officers in London the other day, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you don't work in the legal profession. Is you're knowledge based on court appearances?
But would lie detector tests be better than juries thats my point ??
That depends on what percentage of verdicts depending on lie detector tests are wrong (where they are allowed) and what percentage of verdicts with no lie detector tests are wrong. Unless you can enlighten us on that, I'll stick with what we have.
The way I look at it is, with a lie detector test it's one opinion and from what I've read not that reliable, but with a jury you've got 12 opinions. So, for now, I'll stick with a jury.
FACT.
Anyone else noticed this?
Isnt it about time we switched and started using them.
Ive witnessed it with my own eyes innocent people being found guilty and guilty people found innocent.
Should we switch?
Watching jeremy Kyle is not evidence based reasoning dude
You were commending the youths that attacked officers in London the other day, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you don't work in the legal profession. Is you're knowledge basedon court appearances?
The way I look at it is, with a lie detector test it's one opinion and from what I've read not that reliable, but with a jury you've got 12 opinions. So, for now, I'll stick with a jury.
You've only got to look at this forum to see how unreliable and biased, from both sides, with some mad people, it can be.
Juries are no different. But I don't know the solution.
Maybe, Panels of Judges. But they have the same faults.
You've only got to look at this forum to see how unreliable and biased, from both sides, with some mad people, it can be.
Juries are no different. But I don't know the solution.
Maybe, Panels of Judges. But they have the same faults.
What a surprise. A convicted criminal claiming juries don't know what they're talking about because they decided you were guilty. Who'd have thought it eh..
Comments
You are asking people to do the impossible.
FACT
Polygraph testing has not been demonstrated to be a reliable method for determining truth. At best, skilled operators in certain circumstances can produce better than chance results. Someone showing typical physiological signs of distress when responding to certain questions does not indicate they are necessarily being deceitful.
He already answered the question.
Anyway, you already stated it was a FACT, so why are you asking again?
You seem very confused.
The CPS agreed that they were arses, or may have just been sore losers, and initiated a second Trial.
The second Jury didn't pay attention either (nobody took notes, for example). They were bored out of their minds.
Since, I think, it was Friday afternoon and they were happy to find me Guilty, for a crime I did not commit, and bugger off pronto.
I am not a great fan of the Jury System.
Nor 'The Court'
Nor of the CPS
Nor of the Police Officer who arrested me, for spurious reason, then lied to the Custody Sergeant about the details of my arrest and later in my Trials.
Of course, us Crims, we all say that.
"You're all fekkin' Guilty" as a nice Prison Officer told my cellmate, when he was pleading my case for a 5 minute telephone call, for me, to my brief.
(You have to beg for most things. Staff Shortages override Human Rights)
A lie detector test cant analyse evidence, or make a decision based on hearing the evidence.
Why? Your nonfactual point is FACT according to you.
Can't confirm, but I suspect the OP has very little understanding of how a court case works or how legal system actually works. Given other threads, he is possibly naive beyond belief. Just a thought
I think you may be right.
You can "fool" it any number of ways getting both false positive and negative results even without wanting to, and if you are a good liar, trained, or have certain psychological conditions you'll make a mockery of it.
At best it might make someone who is holding something back tell you because they believe in them.
The Wire got it about right.
The machine tells the tale
No no no. It should read "FFFFFFAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCTTTTTTTT!!!!111".
I'm pretty sure it's:
"FFFFFFAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCTTTTTTTT!!!!11one1".
But the OP does not need evidence. Just a lie detector test on the accused. :p
I probably know more about the legal system than you
Yes but it can prove whether someone is guilty or not cant it?
Here are some questions that could be asked in court.
"Did you mean to stab the deceased to death"?
"Did you generally feel your life was threatened"
These questions can be answered by lie detector tests
They allow yes or no answers, which somewhat limits things, and they are not accurate which doesn't help.
And which legal system would that be, as there are lots of differnt areas of law, which area of law are you saying you know more about. But here is real fact. Polygraph testing has not been demonstrated to be a reliable method for determining truth. At best, skilled operators in certain circumstances can produce better than chance results. Someone showing typical physiological signs of distress when responding to certain questions does not indicate they are necessarily being deceitful.
You were commending the youths that attacked officers in London the other day, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you don't work in the legal profession. Is you're knowledge based on court appearances?
That depends on what percentage of verdicts depending on lie detector tests are wrong (where they are allowed) and what percentage of verdicts with no lie detector tests are wrong. Unless you can enlighten us on that, I'll stick with what we have.
Watching jeremy Kyle is not evidence based reasoning dude
Inactive Member
Thank **** for that!!
Columbo re-runs.
FACT.
You've only got to look at this forum to see how unreliable and biased, from both sides, with some mad people, it can be.
Juries are no different. But I don't know the solution.
Maybe, Panels of Judges. But they have the same faults.
What a surprise. A convicted criminal claiming juries don't know what they're talking about because they decided you were guilty. Who'd have thought it eh..