Do you think lie detector tests should be used in almost all court matters?

[Caribou]

When I say court matters, I mean trials for murders, burglars, and things like that. Currently in countries like the UK, Canada, Australia, the US, NZ, and most Western European countries only use then for minor things. I personally think that it should stay this way. Otherwise, it would defy the whole purpose of a justice system. Many times rulings in courts are fair, but in other instances they tend to be unjust or not ruled out properly. Lie detectors don't prove everything, many cases can be very in-depth. There are even people who know how to manipulate a lie detector test using restraint techniques which are sometimes taught in the military. It makes judges jobs much easier though.

[Ad Bot]

[DrenDran]

I mean, I doubt they're 100% accurate.
Surly there are some false negatives and some false positives or else they would be using them.

[Coupon]

I agree with OP. If they can invent a "better" one, then maybe. But currently, there are not reliable enough for conclusive evidence. They don't hurt matters though. Treat lie as more evidence against and no lie as nothing, perhaps.

[Nasoa]

I get the same kind of nervous as when I think people think I'm lying as when I actually do lie. I don't know what exactly they pick up, but I think I would screw it up.

[Flamecannon]

I was watching Forensic Files and they spent half an episode explaining how a girl whom was raped did the test and failed it, whilst an older man whom committed felonies in the past did the test and passed it. So I wouldn't say yes because I feel like then criminals would be able to prepare for these if they became the norm, however if they were built to perfection of course use them in every case.

[Caribou]

I mean, I doubt they're 100% accurate.
Surly there are some false negatives and some false positives or else they would be using them.

Many times they aren't, sometimes they can be manipulated and other times the person in charge of the test can make mistakes. The majority of the time though, they are accurate for the most part.

I agree with OP. If they can invent a "better" one, then maybe. But currently, there are not reliable enough for conclusive evidence. They don't hurt matters though. Treat lie as more evidence against and no lie as nothing, perhaps.

I agree, but lying isn't all there is to understanding a crime - it can be much more than that. Then again, an investigator could always do this and ask the alleged criminal "Did you do this crime?" and there is a chance that a gesture which indicates untruthfulness could show up on the test.

[sir dooble]

Polygraphs are inaccurate. Theyre basically stress testers, not truth detectors. And who isnt stressed when involved at court, bar those so common with it (who, in the genefal public would likely be criminals)?

They are far from a good judge of character or fact.

[SeventhSandwich]

I think that one of the most fundamental parts of a justice system should be that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

My attitude towards lie detectors is based on Blackstone's Formulation, which states that:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",

Which means that even if lie detectors were 90+% accurate, I still wouldn't want them to be used in the justice system because they'd result in false convictions.

[McZealot]

I wouldn't want them used even if they were 100% accurate. It's an invasion of privacy, in my opinion. They should be able to investigate without forcing the accused into any tests.

I think they should be optional in court, so you would decide take one if you wanted to help support the fact that you were innocent. Of course, this wouldn't be a deciding factor.

[Pie Crust]

And then again, they can be sabotaged to always return positive or negative. Don't forget about paradoxes.

[McZealot]

And then again, they can be sabotaged to always return positive or negative. Don't forget about paradoxes.

How would you sabotage a lie detector? Why? The people taking the tests aren't cops, they are trained for that job specifically..

[Pie Crust]

How would you sabotage a lie detector? Why? The people taking the tests aren't cops, they are trained for that job specifically..

Corrupt the handler of the lie detector or break in and give it a quick rewire.

[Ipquarx]

I wouldn't want them used even if they were 100% accurate. It's an invasion of privacy, in my opinion. They should be able to investigate without forcing the accused into any tests.

what the forget lol, you think it's an invasion of privacy? Seriously?
What the forget do you think they do with polygraphs?? Sell them on the black market? Jack off on them?

[ßlöükfáce]

I get the same kind of nervous as when I think people think I'm lying as when I actually do lie. I don't know what exactly they pick up, but I think I would screw it up.

This pretty much

[Char]

Polygraphs aren't really very good at detecting lies.
I mean, it basically just detects symptoms that, while may be caused by lying if you're not used to it, would not detect anyone that lies all the time without nervousness/guilt and probably get a false positive on an innocent who's simply very nervous, or maybe excited for some reason.

What IS better for detecting lies seeing if the suspect's story matches up with known facts and to a lesser extent other people's stories.