If lie detectors are so accurate, why can't they replace judges and prosecuters in court?
Answers:
First, as noted in previous answers, they are not absolutely reliable because they do not measure truth, they measure stress.
Second, our legal system is based on trial by your peers -- jurors. For all of its imperfections, we want jurors -- real live human people -- not a machine deciding who is telling the truth. That is the main reason why lie detectors are not admissible because we do not allow witnesses to give an opinion as to whether someone else is telling the truth.
Third, many people and some legislators think that using lie detectors (especially on the victims of crime) is inappropriate. If someone assaulted you, would you want law enforcement to strap you up to a machine.
They are not accurate and are not submissable in court.
They can not be used in court in the us because they are not that accurate
They aren't accurate. Actually, they're inadmissable in court, so they will never replace judges, prosecutors, or any other officer of the court.
They aren't THAT accurate. You want to trust your life to a machine in court? More foil around the head dude,more foil.
Lie detectors are not "so," accurate. They are not mind readers, thus do not actually know the absolute truth.
They detect lies based on the statistics of the person, while they are being tested. Blood pressure, how much they're sweating, etc.
Usually if someone is lying, they are very nervous. For the average person, lie detectors are often accurate; however, many people have also mastered the ability to lie as though they are telling the truth.
Man-made devices are usually not perfect. And this is a prime example!
Also, judges and juries allow for human sympathy to be used in the verdict. If we simply asked an all-knowing machine if someone killed someone, it answered yes (with no other information), it's wrong to simply throw them in jail. There are reasons for investigations and trials.
they arent as reliable as they are made out to be, there is a case where a person stabbed himself with a needle every time he lied to change the out come of that result, and was found not guilty of a crime he did commit, also if you suffer anxiety your results will alsobe affected
People can take the 5TH...
Because the judge's and prosecutor's unions. Duh!
Bush would pass a lie detector test if it was given over Iraq
The reason, he believes his lies
Get my point?
Peace
Jim
.
As others have noted, lie detectors are not reliable. In addition, the sole function of the court is not to make findings of fact, it is to rule on the applicable law. Attorneys and judges are needed to bring to light what laws are applicable to the set of facts before the court. No computer could do that. A judge makes decisions about the facts only when he/she is sitting as the finder of fact. All other times the jury decides the facts. So, your question should be, assuming lie detectors are accurate, why can't they replace the judge, when sitting as the finder of fact, or the jury? By now you realize the false supposition upon which your question relies: that the lie detector is accurate.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: