Ohio Court Admits Lie Detector Tests As Evidence 198
An anonymous reader writes "Last month, an Ohio court set a new precedent by allowing polygraph test results to be entered as evidence in a criminal trial. Do lie detectors really belong in the court room? AntiPolygraph.org critiques the polygraph evidence from the this precedential case (Ohio v. Sharma)."
Lie Dectectors will persist... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice, unbiased source. (Score:3, Insightful)
Weight vs admissibility (Score:5, Insightful)
No (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Next question please.
What's next handwriting analysis and phrenology? (Score:4, Insightful)
DON'T CALL IT A LIE DETECTOR!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lie Dectectors will persist... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lie detectors are very unreliable (Score:1, Insightful)
I've been through a poly and talked with others that have and in my experience they look for the largest spike and dwell on that question. They'll tell the person that they think they're lying on it (which obviously makes it harder to pass that question when they repeat it). They'll try to convince you its just better to "confess". Then they'll eventually give up and say you passed (the question never gave a response high enough to cross the threshhold, just enough that they dwelled). Everyone I've talked to had a similar experience, where they were told they were lying on a ridiculous question.
However as long as a poly gets people to confess, it's doing its job (these are background poly's)... so they're unlikely to get rid of them. The people in charge know they can't be trusted but know they also get some small results. Most spy cases the spies passed the poly because if you know what it is, it's easy to fool.
Re:Weight vs admissibility (Score:5, Insightful)
That's fantastic! That means only people who can't afford better lawyers than the schmucks on TV will be imprisoned, and who cares about them, anyway?
But, to lose the sarcasm for a moment, most defendant protections in criminal law were developed so as to defend even the indigent, since they are the most vulnerable to unfairness seeing as how their lawyers either suck or are overworked (or both). If a method of obtaining evidence is bad enough that a decently trained lawyer can demonstrate its utter ridiculousness, it does not belong in a courtroom in the first place. The competence of the defendant's lawyer should not be depended upon as the single fail-safe employed to determine whether a person should be deprived of their freedom.
Re:Gray area between truth and lies (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nice, unbiased source. (Score:3, Insightful)
The above statement presupposes that lie detectors work at all. This presupposition is unsupported by evidence. So the statement is akin to "mediums are not as able to recall the dead if there's a skeptic in the room."
Stress detectors, not "lie" detectors (Score:3, Insightful)
My understanding is that they are really stress detectors. The flawed assumption is that stress indicates deception.
Re:Let the Knee Jerk responses begin... (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if the side offering the evidence is the defense or the prosecution - once the evidence is accepted it sets a (potentially dangerous) precedent.
Re:Lie Dectectors will persist... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Lie" detectors are very useful tools ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stress detectors, not "lie" detectors (Score:1, Insightful)