Jon Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 People in prison who claim they are innocent, why don't they just give them lie detector test's just like they do on chat shows to prove someones innocence :suspect:like people who have been in prison for a long time and been innocent all along, why didn't they give them a test in the first place? Just a thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rat Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 A wishful and irrational thought also. Imagine all those criminals appearing on day-time TV. Moral is: don't believe all you see on day-time TV or read in the press. Rat joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinkabel Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 I often wondered this too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Because lie detectors do no such thing. They're more akin to scientological apparatus than they are to scientific equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camrat78 Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Lie Detectors have been shown to be only 97% or so accurate. All the crims would then claim to be in that 3% margin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newvanandman Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 They gave a test to jeremy bamber recentley,who has been in jail since the 80's then they ignored the result. But to admit hes telling the truth the police would have to admit they were lying,so he will stay in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 The problem I have with lie detector tests is that if you tell the same lie often enough, do you start to believe it yoursel? Then it becomes the truth as far as you're concerned and therefore wouldn't register on the machine? If they gave you a test when you were first arrested or charged maybe it'd stand up in Court, but after several years, I, for one, wouldn't be able to accept it as creditable evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swan_Vesta Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 As a jury of their peers have found them guilty and the appelate courts have decided that they should remain in custody then that alone is more reliable than chat show gadgetry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted July 31, 2007 Author Share Posted July 31, 2007 My point was that lie detector tests are supposedto be 97% accurate but why not test the same person twice and see if they got the same result and if they came back the same obviously that would be the truth and as for being able to cheat the lie detector apparently the lie detector is un-cheatable as sooo many people claim it to be and the chat show part of my theory was just an example on how lie detectors are used to prove peoples innocence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 My point was that lie detector tests are supposedto be 97% ... as for being able to cheat the lie detector apparently the lie detector is un-cheatable It's easy to throw off a polygraph test, and that '97% accurate' figure is total codswallop. You might as well read a suspect's tea-leaves or analyse their handwriting to determine guilt/innocence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.