 
|
leece
|
we should use them as they are more reliable than people judgement |
|
BJtheGreat
 |
Because its not 99.999% accurate. even in an argument from the biggest promoters of the polygraph, the example given is of of 87.5% accuracy, and 20% "inconclusive" results. That might sound good until you realize that of a 100 people tested in a murder case, about 10 innocent people would be found to be "lying," and 20 with "inconclusive" results. The latter might include both innocent people and murderers.
Looked at another way, of a 100 murderers, 10 would be found to be telling the truth, and 20 would have inconclusive results. Out of 100 murders, 30 would not be identified, according to the accuracy assumed in the example. |
|
ohiofirefighter42
 |
Your figurs are way off.....lie detectors are not extremely accurate...as a matter of fact they fail to catch people in lies at a fairly high rate....so you are willing to let a criminal go because he is able to beat the test? |
|
Ryan
|
Because they don't necessarily work!
This is real stuff we are talking about, not the bloody Jeremy Kyle show! You can't potentially convict or acquit someone based on a toy which doesn't necessarily work properly. |
|
Pat
|
Most of the American Federal agencies admit that they can be beaten by someone who knows what they're doing, is a pathological liar or is just irrational. So basically they're not really much good, unless you believe everything you hear on daytime TV. |
|
Avondrow
|
No, they are hardly ever right! The Polygraph is essentially pseudo-science, and quite rightly is not accepted in courts. All it does is measure some physical reactions, the results are down to the interpretation of the operator, and that makes it highly subjective, not a forensic tool at all. It is also very easy to fool, as has been demonstrated by many people, for example James Randi |
|
KERMUGE
|
theyre inaccurate...and people can BEAT them |
|
AngeG
|
Because Jeremy Kyle isn't the Chief of Police. |
|
Marc S
|
They are highly inaccurate and you can train yourself to beat them very easily.
Just because they use them on Trisha doesn't mean they work. |
|
Bart S
|
Because hopefully, we will never be ready for trial by machine. Lie detector results, just like confessions, can be produced and faked; so they are not admissible as valid evidence and quite right too! |
|
frank d
|
Because Lie detectors are only a tool used in interrogation. They are far from foolproof. |
|
brian t
 |
If only they were as accurate as they claim. I passed a lie detector test as part of a psychology experiment. They are not that accurate. These accuracy figures come from people SELLING the equipment. |
|
remowlms
|
Polygraphs (lie detectors) are not very accurate at all. They are not allowed in court precisely because they cannot be proven to show when someone is telling the truth or not. Anyone who takes one just to satisfy the police is an idiot. |
|
James M
|
There is no such thing as a lie detector test. There is machinery that can detect certain reactions in a persons body, but these reactions are always shown to occur naturally in a person when they are under stress anyway. Hooking someone up to a machine and asking them questions, which if he fails will result in a lengthy prison sentence, would naturally cause stress
Any so called lie detector test is only accurate to the point when someone beats it. Then, ALL results would be automatically called into question resulting in a stampede to the Court of Appeal. |
|
the devil wears camo
|
because of the fact that these machines are not as accurate as people like Jeremy kyle like to make out,i think the success rate is between 80 and 90% which leaves a lot of lee way,also,by law a person cannot be compelled to undertake such a test |
|
Bryan
 |
Actually the police do in many cases, but the results are inadmissible in court. The reason for this is because the polygraph machine results are unreliable and easily beaten with the proper training or knowledge. |
|
Purple Moogle
|
That would be because they are nowhere near 99.99999% accurate at all, and also because use of such equipment against the user's wish is in breach of human rights.
Basically though, if someone had trained themself to fool a lie detector, they could get away with anything in your version of the courtroom. |
|
norman j
|
The polygraph can be beaten |
|
Silly World
|
They are nowhere near that accurate.
Plus some can lie all day and show up as honest, visa versa
If people are innocent its ok that they can support their case by taking the test, but sending people to jail on it is something else
I always thought it would be a great business in the local mall, "My husband said he was at working, and we want a test to verify" |
|
footballplayer#14
|
they are inaccurate,expensive and you cant use it in court it is just a waste of time and money |
|
Rommel
|
because the authorities suddenly realised that if they allowed lie detectors to become the norm, sooner or later public opinion and the legal system would demand that they be used on all... to add to evidence, including police and (more importantly) MPs. when they were first introduced, and started to gain public suport, the pannic to get the whole thing dumped in westminster was unbelievable. i remember them coming into the public arena. for two years we were told how deadly accurate they were, then as soon as the government got the pannics. we were told how in!! accurate they were. |
|
Marky
 |
You are incorrect, lie detector tests are only accurate around 80% of the time as 1 in 5 can beat it. |
|
No Stupidity
 |
Due to unreliability, lie detectors detect lies by noting how your pulse rate fluctuates. In theory, when you lie, your pulse rate will fluctuate higher (due to nervousness when telling a lie or guilt). But suppose a criminal trains himself to remain calm at all times, or is able to deceive himself that he is telling the truth so the body's guilt emotion is over-ridden.The lie detector is useless then. Also, innocent people can get nervous just by knowing they are a suspect, what happens then? We don't want to accquit criminals and charge the innocent, so we chose to abandon this method. |
|
Eye Spy
|
Lie detectors are themselves a lie.
The idea of a lie detector is to make the person being tested believe the test is 99.9999% accurate. This makes them freak out and give exaggerated physiological responses that are picked up on the machine.
Anyone can be trained to beat a lie detector |
|
Cliffy
|
Criminals seem to have more "Rights" and are more protected than law abiding citizens ... ask any criminal defense attorney. |
|
Lynx.d.
|
It's SUPER expensive, if you haven't noticed already. And they already have quite effective ways of making them break. Without super-expensive stuff. |
|
mischievous
|
Because the do-gooders and the PC brigade would object, it would result in too many criminals being caught. |
|
J
|
I think it has to do with the costs of having one done, and the fact that they have a chance- however small, of convicting someone who isnt guily. There is not 100% accuracy so it would never solve the problem of doubt or mean a convict isnt able to argue his case.
I am pretty sure there are more then 1000 cases a year, this would mean 10 people from thoses cases are wrongfully inprisoned. They could sue and its also a mis carrige of justice. |
|
lil patto
|
because there is a 3% chance of it not been accurate! but i think we should have it any way as it would scare the **** out of criminals and they might just admit things! |
|
Ava Wava my name isn't Ava
|
thats a good idea! |
|
jamand
|
Because the Human Rights Politically Correct buttwipes won't allow it as it infringes their rights |
|
|
|
|
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
