rcook@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU (02/09/86)
NO! (but probably would, disagreeingly(sp?) if it meant work or no work)
Rob Cook
UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!rcook
'Life is just a cocktail party on the street'
-Mick Jagger- oaa@houxl.UUCP (O.ALEXANDER) (02/13/86)
In article <2613@sdcrdcf.UUCP> meister@faron.UUCP (Philip W. Servita) says: > Assume the ideal lie detector (ILD) exists: > Questioner: Does there exist a God? > Subject (any member of any clergy will do here): Yes. > ILD response: ??? > > Just some food for thought. (Perhaps there can be an equivalance drawn here?) Obviously the ILD would respond YES! Seriously, lie detection should be relative to what the person knows or believes to be the truth, not necessarily what is the absolute truth. Of course the ILD will have to contend with hypnosis, schizophrenia, hallucinations, and other things that affect perception of reality. Owen Alexander
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (02/14/86)
> > I always thought courts were specifically intended to be slanted, in some > sense, in favor of the defendent: Due to the burden on the _plaintiff_ to > prove the defendent's guilt _beyond_a_shadow_of_a_doubt_, etc., etc. > > Thus, since the polygraph is unreliable, it should not be allowed as evidence > for the prosecution, since it does not demonstrate anything beyond a doubt. > > Now for the point: Can or should a polygraph test be admissible as > evidence for the DEFENSE when it shows the defendent is telling the truth? > If a plaintiff says "You did so" and the defendent says "I did not" and > the defendent is shown by polygraph to be telling the truth, should this be > considered to be at least "reliable enough" to cast a shadow of doubt upon > the prosecutor's accusation? > > Are polygraph tests in fact allowed in court in this situation? If not, > should they be? > -- Jay Jaeckel First, this contains a common misconception. In U.S. criminal law, the state is required to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond any shadow of a doubt. I believe that polygraph records are not admissible as evidence for either side. Nor do I believe they should be. "Lie detection" is a form of technological voodoo. The system measures things like blood pressure and galvanic skin response. It is true that these change under stress, but stress can come from fear of false accusation as well as from lying. I have heard of a technique that the police use with polygraphs. They ask series of questions that make the subject believe that they are getting evidence of the subject's guilt. Quite often this results in a confession, which can be introduced in court. The polygraph results can be discarded once there is a confession. What does anyone have to say about this? -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff