INFORMATION
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
Lie detectors
Lie detectors
Jeremy Kyle uses them and the Government is proposing to use them to find out if sex offenders are safe to be let out (they can't be used to prosecute someone charged with a crime, so why they think they can be used to determine someone's innocence is beyond me).
However, what's the science and the evidence behind them?
Sense About Science have just published: Sense About Lie Detectors
However, what's the science and the evidence behind them?
Sense About Science have just published: Sense About Lie Detectors
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: Lie detectors
Well, it seems that the arguments against lie detectors are much the same as those some years ago. Better technology just does not seem to have lived up to its "promise".
But will that influence the politicians?
But will that influence the politicians?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: Lie detectors
The problem appears to be that the public at large believe they work.
Re: Lie detectors
More on this latest Government wheeze by Prof Chris French: Why giving polygraph tests to sex offenders is a terrible idea
Polygraphs are notoriously unreliable and easy to fool, and sooner or later sex offenders will discover the truth about them
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: Lie detectors
In some counties in the UK, polygraphs have been used where someone is accused of a sex offence, on the accused and the accuser.Altfish wrote:The problem appears to be that the public at large believe they work.
I see the public belief that they work, as a positive. It may discourage those guilty of taking the test thus giving the authorities a better idea of who may be telling the truth.
If I was wrongly accused of a sexual offence, I would like the polygraph used as an aid to prove my innocence. You may find that the accuser would refuse to take the test, which would be a positive outcome, casting doubt on their testimony.
I would have liked the McCans to have taken the test, even though it could not have been used in court. Many millions have been donated to the trust and there is still doubt as to whether they know more than they are telling.
..besieged, by a thousand or more .. Mexicans.. surrender at discretion, otherwise, ... put to the sword, .. I have answered.. with a cannon shot, .... sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier ... Victory or Death. William Barret Travis
Re: Lie detectors
The most recent episode (5/6) of Dara O Briain's Science Club on BBC 2 had a good look at the brain. Some of the unbelievable advances, such as recognising what we are thinking make me assume that such things as lie detection will be a more advanced science that it used to be.
Re: Lie detectors
There are also techniques like voice analysis though that is at about the same level of confidence as polygraphy. Perhaps a combination of such techniques may, at least, indicate a probability of truth v deception.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: Lie detectors
Of course, in this country and many others, a court can take no inference from an accused refusing to take a test: he/she has the right to remain silent and for a court to prove him/her guilty.geolab wrote:I see the public belief that they work, as a positive. It may discourage those guilty of taking the test thus giving the authorities a better idea of who may be telling the truth.
If I was wrongly accused of a sexual offence, I would like the polygraph used as an aid to prove my innocence. You may find that the accuser would refuse to take the test, which would be a positive outcome, casting doubt on their testimony.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?