Police trial lie detector tests on sex offender suspects

Police trial lie detector tests on sex offender suspects

www.bbc.co.uk

Polygraph techniques are complex and are by no means a single solution to solving crimes, potentially offering in certain circumstances an additional tool to structured interrogation.
Although routine in police investigations in the US, the results of lie detector tests are considered too unreliable for use in criminal trials in the UK.

However, a three-year pilot study in the East and West Midlands could lead to the compulsory testing of convicted sex offenders.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I have no problem with this in theory , Tony Blair and Bush would have had a lot of explaining to do if they had been forced to endure this test.
I see the rub , assure the masses that it is being used for a very good reason , THEN bingo it will be rolled out for all across the board , for everyday crimes , they would have to change the UK law as it stands for the evidence obtained to be permissible in court.

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Just to clarify , I think any technology that will further the police to catch sex offenders / child sex offenders is forward thinking and has my full support , BUT why do I think this will be rolled out on the general public in the context of everyday crimes commited in the community.

Why don't they just water board sex offenders.

The lie detector does not give you a he did it or he did not do it.

What it does give is the suspect is ether hiding something or not hiding some thing.

I have a few problems with the lie detector test.

I mean, if I had to go through it, I would be anxious, blood pressure up, sweating, just at the thought of it. So then I would come out as a liar, even though I wasn't.

For example, my doctor knows that when I have to have a blood pressure test, my blood pressure goes up - just something that happens to me. He even said, a while ago, to a young doc he was training "Don't worry about her BP, it always goes up when we are testing."

So I have huge issues about the findings of lie detector tests.

I have a problem with lie detectors period.
I have a friend who went through the Police academy and the instructor told/taught all of the cadets how to beat the lie detector test that may stop them from passing if failed.

I also have a friend(female) who was given a lie detector because someone stole her identity and then committed a crime, She failed miserably, she even failed when asked her name.

They are unreliable period.

The article states that they will be used prior to any charges being filed, The 5th amendment allows You to not answer any questions period so how would this work? Charge the guy because he says nothing? I'm all for getting criminals off the street but charging a guy with a crime because he didn't say anything seems a bit totalitarian to me.

reply to post by Droidinvoid


If this were to be used here in the UK on sex offenders and no other criminal then we would be entering some very murky waters which would involve prejudice and discrimination. Our justice system here in the UK has worked fine for the time its been in use, lie detectors wouldn't be reliable no matter what percentage of ability it has to tell fact from fake. Why should this only be used on sex offenders? Why not use it on all suspects?

Lie detectors don't work and even judges have said this. They don't determine anything. They're a fantasy and a complete fraudulent miscarriage of justice. So anyone supporting this should be fired and charged for perpetrating fraud.

The sad part is, a lot of the unthinking already believe that these lie detector tests are 100% infalliable. All you have to do is watch the Jeremy Kyle show for proof of this, the whole thing being presented as unassailible fact when Jezzer does his big "And we have the results" thing, followed by applause or baying for blood depending on the context of the above result.

Combine this with a bit of red-top media hysteria and it's all but set in stone.

Baa!

They're using sex offenders because they know most people will rally behind cries of "for the children!".

Like the TSA screeners ("stop the terrorists!"), this is just the beginning.

reply to post by Droidinvoid


There is a reason lie detectors are not admissible in a court of law in the US. Its not an exact science and there are no reliable baselines to use. One must rely on the person being tested to set those baselines, which measures different parts of the bodies response.

If a person is lying find another way to determine and prove it based on investigation and impeachment of the suspects / witnesses testimony.

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
I have a few problems with the lie detector test.

I mean, if I had to go through it, I would be anxious, blood pressure up, sweating, just at the thought of it. So then I would come out as a liar, even though I wasn't.

That is exactly why they are not currently allowed in court in the US. The science behind them is flawed at best. Anyone hooked up to those things knowing that if they fail, it could make them look really really bad, would be nervous.

Being nervous raises bloodpressure, heart rate etc... All things that the lie detector measures in order to "determine" whether or not you are lying.....

So, I find it funny. A stone cold killer with no conscience would pass one because their BP etc, would not change at all....

I would fail. I would be nervous as can be. Lie detector tests belong on The Jerry Springer show. Not in a court of law or any other such legal place.