- 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?
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?