• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lie Detectors

How confident are you that Person B lied?

  • 100% Person B was definitely lying.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 95% or more. There's a shred of doubt, but they almost certainly lied.

    Votes: 2 8.3%

  • 80% they probably lied, but I'd allow it in court.

    Votes: 1 4.2%

  • 80%, but that's not good enough to serve even as evidence in court.

    Votes: 4 16.7%

  • It's a 50/50 crap shoot you have no idea.

    Votes: 17 70.8%

  • I trust person B before I trust person A.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    24
MrWonka

MrWonka

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
12,130
Reaction score
7,253
Location
Charleston, SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I realize that lie detectors are not admissible in court, and they certainly have their faults and criticisms, but most experts do seem to think they are fairly reliable in most cases when the operator is a professional who really knows what they're doing. Certainly, if the only evidence you had against someone that they committed a crime was that they failed a lie detector test when they were asked if they'd committed the crime I would have to say that's not enough to justify a guilty verdict and it shouldn't be allowed in court, but what about a scenario like this...

Two different people who both witnessed an event are both required to take a polygraph with a certified professional operator. The session can be filmed and recorded in case there are any anomalies that look weird they can be challenged. One person(person A)passes the test. The other person(person B) tells a contradicting story to the first person and fails the test. The person who failed is then allowed to take a second polygraph, on a different day, on a different machine, with a different certified professional operator and once again fails the test. What level of confidence would you have that Person B was lying?
 
Zero because polygraphs are bull****. There is no physiological indicator of lying, only stress and anxiety, and a person can, and often is, stressed and anxious when being interrogated by cops. Lie detectors should only be used as an aid to cops to help them know where to look, it should not be used as evidence, primary or supporting, to convict anyone.

"It's a 50/50 crap shoot, you have no idea."
 
Polygraph tests are a interrogation tactic.... nothing else.
 
MrWonka said:
I realize that lie detectors are not admissible in court, and they certainly have their faults and criticisms, but most experts do seem to think they are fairly reliable in most cases when the operator is a professional who really knows what they're doing. Certainly, if the only evidence you had against someone that they committed a crime was that they failed a lie detector test when they were asked if they'd committed the crime I would have to say that's not enough to justify a guilty verdict and it shouldn't be allowed in court, but what about a scenario like this...

Two different people who both witnessed an event are both required to take a polygraph with a certified professional operator. The session can be filmed and recorded in case there are any anomalies that look weird they can be challenged. One person(person A)passes the test. The other person(person B) tells a contradicting story to the first person and fails the test. The person who failed is then allowed to take a second polygraph, on a different day, on a different machine, with a different certified professional operator and once again fails the test. What level of confidence would you have that Person B was lying?
Click to expand...

None... lie detectors do not detect lies... they detect STRESS.

Take two people... on who gets stressed when talking to cops and another who is basically a pathological liar... who would pass the lie detector?
 
MrWonka said:
I realize that lie detectors are not admissible in court, and they certainly have their faults and criticisms, but most experts do seem to think they are fairly reliable in most cases when the operator is a professional who really knows what they're doing. Certainly, if the only evidence you had against someone that they committed a crime was that they failed a lie detector test when they were asked if they'd committed the crime I would have to say that's not enough to justify a guilty verdict and it shouldn't be allowed in court, but what about a scenario like this...

Two different people who both witnessed an event are both required to take a polygraph with a certified professional operator. The session can be filmed and recorded in case there are any anomalies that look weird they can be challenged. One person(person A)passes the test. The other person(person B) tells a contradicting story to the first person and fails the test. The person who failed is then allowed to take a second polygraph, on a different day, on a different machine, with a different certified professional operator and once again fails the test. What level of confidence would you have that Person B was lying?
Click to expand...

Polygraphs are notoriously unreliable. It's a useful interrogation technique, particularly for the gullible. Otherwise they're worthless.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Zero because polygraphs are bull****. There is no physiological indicator of lying, only stress and anxiety, and a person can, and often is, stressed and anxious when being interrogated by cops. Lie detectors should only be used as an aid to cops to help them know where to look, it should not be used as evidence, primary or supporting, to convict anyone.

"It's a 50/50 crap shoot, you have no idea."
Click to expand...
These shows that conduct polygraph tests are so fake it's actually comedic.
 
MrWonka said:
I realize that lie detectors are not admissible in court, and they certainly have their faults and criticisms, but most experts do seem to think they are fairly reliable in most cases when the operator is a professional who really knows what they're doing. Certainly, if the only evidence you had against someone that they committed a crime was that they failed a lie detector test when they were asked if they'd committed the crime I would have to say that's not enough to justify a guilty verdict and it shouldn't be allowed in court, but what about a scenario like this...

Two different people who both witnessed an event are both required to take a polygraph with a certified professional operator. The session can be filmed and recorded in case there are any anomalies that look weird they can be challenged. One person(person A)passes the test. The other person(person B) tells a contradicting story to the first person and fails the test. The person who failed is then allowed to take a second polygraph, on a different day, on a different machine, with a different certified professional operator and once again fails the test. What level of confidence would you have that Person B was lying?
Click to expand...

These tests do not detect lies or liars - they detect one's stress to certain subject matter. That stress may be to the subject matter rather than the response given to questions about that subject matter. The use of 'control' questions concerning benign subjects can help to eliminate stress simply due to the interrogation environment but not to subject matter which causes a stress reaction.
 
On the majority of people they seem to be right more often than not. I voted 80% but I don’t know if I would actually go that high. And yes, what they are detecting is nervousness but in a testing situation, after controlling for baseline nervousness, the correlation between spiked nervousness and deception is greater than 50% in the average person. I have taken 5 counter-intelligence polys in my life. They aren’t fun. Up there with going to the dentist.
 
Can you imagine if they were truly reliable.

Would totally change our judicial system. No more hung juries. Most likely a sharp increase in confessions.


Heck, they could even bring a lie detector to a political debate. Get out the popcorn.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Zero because polygraphs are bull****. There is no physiological indicator of lying, only stress and anxiety, and a person can, and often is, stressed and anxious when being interrogated by cops. Lie detectors should only be used as an aid to cops to help them know where to look, it should not be used as evidence, primary or supporting, to convict anyone.

"It's a 50/50 crap shoot, you have no idea."
Click to expand...

I...agree with you...Now I need to go lay down.....ouch.
 
Know what works better? 7 up and seagrams 7, aka, 7 and 7s. After about...4-5 of those, the truth starts to come out.
 
MrWonka said:
I realize that lie detectors are not admissible in court, and they certainly have their faults and criticisms, but most experts do seem to think they are fairly reliable in most cases when the operator is a professional who really knows what they're doing. Certainly, if the only evidence you had against someone that they committed a crime was that they failed a lie detector test when they were asked if they'd committed the crime I would have to say that's not enough to justify a guilty verdict and it shouldn't be allowed in court, but what about a scenario like this...

Two different people who both witnessed an event are both required to take a polygraph with a certified professional operator. The session can be filmed and recorded in case there are any anomalies that look weird they can be challenged. One person(person A)passes the test. The other person(person B) tells a contradicting story to the first person and fails the test. The person who failed is then allowed to take a second polygraph, on a different day, on a different machine, with a different certified professional operator and once again fails the test. What level of confidence would you have that Person B was lying?
Click to expand...

In that particular case I would guess that the odds are greater than 50/50 but I'm not going to say 80%. There are just far too many variables and that's why they should never be admissible. Take Ms Ford in the recent Kavanaugh case. Her lawyers submitted a polygraph but the polygraph could have been rigged to giver her an advantage. If you start out with wanting a prejudiced outcome and use your own people to give you that prejudiced outcome, then you will get a ........................................................ (drumroll please) prejudiced outcome.

Now if you have a completely unbiased and fair test or tests and they come out one way then I would say that the results would be somewhere between 50/50 and 80/20. But, certain people can and do pass tests that don't give the correct result. Take Ford again, she may have believed that Kavanaugh did what she said he did but there have been two men who came forward and said that they had had consensual sex with Ford in circumstances very similar to what she reported with Kavanaugh. The girl was drunk and she was 15 years old and it was 35 years ago. There are any number of reasons why someone can lie and pass a lie detector test or they may wholeheartedly believe in their own testimony, which might actually be incorrect.
 
Middleground said:
"Justice" Kavenaugh disagrees with you.
Click to expand...

:roll: It's Justice Kavanaugh, without the quotes. He IS a Justice of the US Supreme Court whether you like it, accept it, or not.

And considering his accusers track record so far of recanting and admitting that they lied I wouldn't keep up with supporting the farce that went on by the Dems.
 
Kal'Stang said:
:roll: It's Justice Kavanaugh, without the quotes. He IS a Justice of the US Supreme Court whether you like it, accept it, or not.

And considering his accusers track record so far of recanting and admitting that they lied I wouldn't keep up with supporting the farce that went on by the Dems.
Click to expand...

None of that negates Dr Ford's account. And "Justice" Kavenaugh is a strong proponent of lie detectors. Did you know that?
 
MrWonka said:
I realize that lie detectors are not admissible in court, and they certainly have their faults and criticisms, but most experts do seem to think they are fairly reliable in most cases when the operator is a professional who really knows what they're doing. Certainly, if the only evidence you had against someone that they committed a crime was that they failed a lie detector test when they were asked if they'd committed the crime I would have to say that's not enough to justify a guilty verdict and it shouldn't be allowed in court, but what about a scenario like this...

Two different people who both witnessed an event are both required to take a polygraph with a certified professional operator. The session can be filmed and recorded in case there are any anomalies that look weird they can be challenged. One person(person A)passes the test. The other person(person B) tells a contradicting story to the first person and fails the test. The person who failed is then allowed to take a second polygraph, on a different day, on a different machine, with a different certified professional operator and once again fails the test. What level of confidence would you have that Person B was lying?
Click to expand...

Lye detectors dont detect lies, they detect physiological changes. People who stutter for example give completely unreliable results, as do most who have learned English as a second language.

I can see them as useful to butress claims of innocence, but not giilt.
 
MrWonka said:
I realize that lie detectors are not admissible in court, and they certainly have their faults and criticisms, but most experts do seem to think they are fairly reliable in most cases when the operator is a professional who really knows what they're doing. Certainly, if the only evidence you had against someone that they committed a crime was that they failed a lie detector test when they were asked if they'd committed the crime I would have to say that's not enough to justify a guilty verdict and it shouldn't be allowed in court, but what about a scenario like this...

Two different people who both witnessed an event are both required to take a polygraph with a certified professional operator. The session can be filmed and recorded in case there are any anomalies that look weird they can be challenged. One person(person A)passes the test. The other person(person B) tells a contradicting story to the first person and fails the test. The person who failed is then allowed to take a second polygraph, on a different day, on a different machine, with a different certified professional operator and once again fails the test. What level of confidence would you have that Person B was lying?
Click to expand...

Red:
More than 50%, but absent knowing the questions asked and the circumstance(s) about which B was asked, I can't hazard how much more.
 
Crosscheck said:
Can you imagine if they were truly reliable.

Would totally change our judicial system. No more hung juries. Most likely a sharp increase in confessions.


Heck, they could even bring a lie detector to a political debate. Get out the popcorn.
Click to expand...

I read a sci-fi book in the late 90s with that exact premise. A 100% accurate truth machine was invented and eventually was miniaturized and mass produced so people wore them like watches and their watch would tell them if they were being lied to. It changed the entire culture. It was called “Truth Machine” by James Halperin. After 20 years I don’t remember much more about it but I do remember enjoying it.
 
Middleground said:
None of that negates Dr Ford's account. And "Justice" Kavenaugh is a strong proponent of lie detectors. Did you know that?
Click to expand...

Nothing corroborates Dr. Fords account. Tell me, when are we ever going to see her polygraph results? You know, the ones that she has refused to give over...assuming she actually took one.

And considering Kavanaugh's background how much would you want to bet that he's taken such tests before?

And yes, I know his opinion on them. In fact, he said nothing that I didn't say. They're a valuable tool for investigations, but unreliable to use in a court of law.
 
i picked crap shoot. i'd be so nervous that i'd probably look like i was lying about my basic info. i'm nervous about many face to face interactions.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Zero because polygraphs are bull****. There is no physiological indicator of lying, only stress and anxiety, and a person can, and often is, stressed and anxious when being interrogated by cops. Lie detectors should only be used as an aid to cops to help them know where to look, it should not be used as evidence, primary or supporting, to convict anyone.

"It's a 50/50 crap shoot, you have no idea."
Click to expand...

Then why would it be an aid to cops? Isn't it just as likely to send them down the wrong path as it is to send them down the right one?
 
Helix said:
i picked crap shoot. i'd be so nervous that i'd probably look like i was lying about my basic info. i'm nervous about many face to face interactions.
Click to expand...

A polygraph doesn't trigger because a person is nervous. It triggers because you're more nervous when you lie than you are when you tell the truth. It establishes a baseline using questions you're obviously telling the truth about, and probes you with irrelevant questions you're almost certainly lying about in order to see how your reactions change. So it doesn't matter how nervous you are. It matters how your nervous changes over the course of the test.
 
MrWonka said:
Then why would it be an aid to cops? Isn't it just as likely to send them down the wrong path as it is to send them down the right one?
Click to expand...

Well it can tell them if that person is heavily stressed by certain subject matter. More often that not that may be a helpful clue, but it still could just be their general nervousness in being in an interrogation room with cops hooked up to a crazy machine and being suspected of murder.

I honestly wouldn't put any value to it, but if they want to use it solely as an interrogation technique I can understand that. It is however absolutely not the kind of objective evidence that should be used to convict someone.
 
Bodhisattva said:
None... lie detectors do not detect lies... they detect STRESS.

Take two people... on who gets stressed when talking to cops and another who is basically a pathological liar... who would pass the lie detector?
Click to expand...

The one who gets stressed. A polygraph doesn't just go off because you're stressed. It goes off because of your stress levels change when you're asked specific questions. A good operator establishes a baseline for your stress(and other factors), they ask you questions they know you'll tell the truth about, and irrelevant questions they know you're likely to lie about. Questions like (have you ever taken something that didn't belong to you). From that, they can see how various things change from one question to the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom