Ohio Court Admits Lie Detector Tests As Evidence
An anonymous reader writes "Last month, an Ohio court set a new precedent by allowing polygraph test results to be entered as evidence in a criminal trial. Do lie detectors really belong in the court room? AntiPolygraph.org critiques the polygraph evidence from the this precedential case (Ohio v. Sharma)."
...as long as people are still searching for some magical way to get the truth out of somebody. Won't happen short of the next fifty years of neurological research.
There is no replacement for displacement.
Getting evidence admitted is one thing, but getting a jury to believe it or give it any weight or credibility is something else entirely.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
"Do lie detectors really belong in the court room?"
No. Next question please.
I once interviewed for a job and was told that I would be required to handwrite a statement so it could be analyzed by their "handwriting expert." I promptly got up and left. They looked shocked. Apparently they initially tried polygraphing applicants, but found it to be too expensive. Years later I bumped into the HR person at another job and asked her about the success of the vetting process. She said it didn't work and if anything made things worse.
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. --Denis Diderot
It doesn't "detect lies"!!! It detects physiological changes ONLY! Determining what those changes actually mean is entirely subjective and open to varied interpretations!
You're using her as bait, Master!
It doesn't matter if the side offering the evidence is the defense or the prosecution - once the evidence is accepted it sets a (potentially dangerous) precedent.
You can learn a lot about a person if you just take the time to inject them with sodium pentathol