Pretend you're accused of a crime you didn't commit. Would you take a lie detector test?

Anytime

I don't understand why lie detector tests aren't mandatory as long as you have a lawyer present.

I don't understand why lie detector tests aren't mandatory as long as you have a lawyer present.

why would they be? They aren't even scientifically proven as accurate.

why would they be? They aren't even scientifically proven as accurate.

No? My mistake. I was under the impression that they were considering how many law enforcement agencies use them.

No? My mistake. I was under the impression that they were considering how many law enforcement agencies use them.

I know. They can't even be admitted as evidence in a trial.

Interesting. Well then I guess I'd still take it because

1. I'm innocent.
2. My willingness to take the test might give the prosecutor or law enforcement official a better opinion of me.
3. Ideally the evidence would confirm my innocence regardless of the test results.

You're nervous and you fail it. Guess what they think of you now. The media is told you failed it, guess what prospective jurors think.

Ideally, I'd be confident (arrogant?) enough to pass with flying colors. :p

Yes I would.

the trick to tricking a lie detector test is in controlling the sphincter mussell, thats why it can easliy be passed, thats why they will never be 100%, its what some bloke told me in the pub

I wonder if that bloke of yours is speaking from experience.

the trick to tricking a lie detector test is in controlling the sphincter mussell, thats why it can easliy be passed, thats why they will never be 100%, its what some bloke told me in the pub

That could actually be possible. Focusing on something else than the question might as well make a person able to answer the question (trutfully or lie) but accompany the answer with the physical reaction to something truthful (ie. movements of the sphincter muscle, but it could probably be any other part of the body, as long as it is not externally visible).

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph:

Asked how he passed the polygraph test, Ames explained that he sought advice from his Soviet handler and received the simple instruction to: "Get a good night's sleep, and rest, and go into the test rested and relaxed. Be nice to the polygraph examiner, develop a rapport, and be cooperative and try to maintain your calm."

"What is commonly called « lie detector » is actually a polygraph that
essentially measures four parameters : heart rate, blood pressure,
respiration, and sweating (see the image at the bottom). The variation of
these parameters may be associated with some emotions but the question is
highly controversial. To my opinion, what should be clear is that the
polygraph measures the parameters mentioned above but not in any way
whether a person is telling the truth or not. Moreover, the output from a
polygraph may fail to detect real emotions (ex. fear) behind lying.
Indeed, a 1983 report by the Office of Technology Assessment concluded
that polygraphs are not an effective scientific method to check for
security breaches. I also think that having “false positive” is very
dangerous: a person may tell the truth while being highly stressed by the
situation. According to Alan P. Zelicoff (physicist at the Center for
National Security and Arms Control at Sandia National Laboratories in
Albuquerque, New Mexico): there are “tremendous cynicism and doubt about
the utility of the test in both management and technical staff.”

To answer your question more precisely, there are no study that have used
PET or fMRI as a “lie detector”. On the other hand, some people think that
it would yield better results than the polygraph because there are growing
evidence that certain parts of the brain are involved with emotions
(discussed briefly in Holden, 2001). On the other hand, one must remember
that emotions does not necessarily mean truth or lie although it may be
indicative in some cases."

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-07/994841079.Ns.r.html

I would if the polygraph were administered by an independent organization that my lawyer approved. The biggest problem with the polygraph is that the results have to be interpreted--if the person who administers it is unbiased and knowledgable there may be as low as a 5% margin of error but if that's not the case the margin of error can be as high 50% or higher (in other words no better than flipping a coin).

The National Academies of Science evaluation (in 2003) found that in a hypothetical population of 10,000 examinees for gov't positions that includes 10 spies

If the test were set sensitively enough to detect about 80 percent or more of deceivers, about 1,606 employees or more would be expected “fail” the test; further investigation would be needed to separate the 8 spies from the 1,598 loyal employees caught in the screen. If the test were set to reduce the numbers of false alarms (loyal employees who “fail” the test) to about 40 of 9,990, it would correctly classify over 99.5 percent of the examinees, but among the errors would be 8 of the 10 hypothetical spies, who could be expected to “pass” the test and so would be free to cause damage.


http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309084369

I wouldn't. They might as well ask me if I would be willing to submit to a palm reading. If its not reliable enough to be used as evidence in court, why bother?

Pretend you're accused of a crime you didn't commit. Would you take a lie detector test?

I think this is a no-win situation.

If I don't take the test, I will look suspicious. Even though the polygraph test is not mandatory, not taking it makes a person look suspicious. I doubt the jurors can really forget something just because the judge said "strike that from the record".

If I do take the test, I am quite sure that I would be so uncomfortable that all of my answers would look like lies, even when they'd ask me whether I have a head or not.

Either way, I'd lose.

I think this is a no-win situation.

If I don't take the test, I will look suspicious. Even though the polygraph test is not mandatory, not taking it makes a person look suspicious. I doubt the jurors can really forget something just because the judge said "strike that from the record".

If I do take the test, I am quite sure that I would be so uncomfortable that all of my answers would look like lies, even when they'd ask me whether I have a head or not.

Either way, I'd lose.

That's what the control questions are for. If you have nothing to hide you best take it.

statistics of this thread show that vast majority thinks it is not ok for homosexuals to adopt kids

What.. :confused:

That's what the control questions are for. If you have nothing to hide you best take it.

Realistically, I think I would be so put off by the whole situation that this would cause me to fail the test - I think I would probably fail on the control questions.

What.. :confused:

oops...wrong thread...:o thanks Enmos

Realistically, I think I would be so put off by the whole situation that this would cause me to fail the test - I think I would probably fail on the control questions.

lol yeah that's my whole point and why they are there. If you fail the control questions it's a sign of nervousness.

oops...wrong thread...:o thanks Enmos

lol I figured as much ;)

lol yeah that's my whole point and why they are there. If you fail the control questions it's a sign of nervousness.

... and nervousness will likely be associated with guilt.

... and nervousness will likely be associated with guilt.

Maybe but as pointed out earlier so will refusing the test. All things considered I think it's best to take the damn test.

Oh well. It's a cruel world. Might as well start practicing tranquility meditation and prepare for things like lie detector tests.

Oh well. It's a cruel world. Might as well start practicing tranquility meditation and prepare for things like lie detector tests.

Why ? They aren't allowed as evidence in court. They only serve as a tool to help police officers, see if they are on the right track and shit..

I think its a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of thing.
But me, I'm not taking something that hasn't been scientifically proven. Its a matter of principle.

I think its a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of thing.
But me, I'm not taking something that hasn't been scientifically proven. Its a matter of principle.

You are 'damned' if you don't, maybe 'damned' if you do.
You don't know beforehand that you are going to fail the test. Besides, it shows goodwill on your part.

I think if you say you don't want to take it, it casts a shadow of guilt on you.

You are 'damned' if you don't, maybe 'damned' if you do.
You don't know beforehand that you are going to fail the test. Besides, it shows goodwill on your part.

But its hypocritical! It would be like allowing a psychic to come in and hold my hands. Am I telling the truth, am I not?
If it was allowed as evidence (like DNA, scientifically proven) I would.

I think if you say you don't want to take it, it casts a shadow of guilt on you.

It does, and I don't think its fair. Its not a proven test, can't be used in court, so why should you have to take it?

But its hypocritical! It would be like allowing a psychic to come in and hold my hands. Am I telling the truth, am I not?
If it was allowed as evidence (like DNA, scientifically proven) I would.

No it's not hypocritical, it's cooperating.. ;)

It does, and I don't think its fair. Its not a proven test, can't be used in court, so why should you have to take it?

You don't HAVE to.. lol

You don't HAVE to.. lol

I know. I just see people thinking someone has something to hide when they refuse. I think they have every right and should refuse.

I know. I just see people thinking someone has something to hide when they refuse. I think they have every right and should refuse.

Well, you really are powerless against that. The smarter thing to do is just take the test.

If I was accused of committing a crime I had nothing to do with.
I would be volunteering to take the test.

If I was accused of committing a crime I had nothing to do with.
I would be volunteering to take the test.

I wouldn't go that far.. lol

I would just take some beta blockers (if I knew where to find them!), then take the test.

I would just take some beta blockers (if I knew where to find them!), then take the test.

Don't they give you a physical ?

I didn't know that...

I didn't know that...

I don't know either, I was asking.. seems pretty logical to do so though.

what if you were arrested and didn't make bail? How would you get beta blockers in prison?

Crap. There goes that plan.

I would certainly NOT take it.

If I don't take it, they can't prove I'm guilty.
If I do take it, there's a chance it will give innacurate results, in which case I now have to try to prove my innocence.

Not taking it would look suspicious, but that would be the only piece of "evidence" they have against me.

I would certainly NOT take it.

If I don't take it, they can't prove I'm guilty.
If I do take it, there's a chance it will give innacurate results, in which case I now have to try to prove my innocence.

Not taking it would look suspicious, but that would be the only piece of "evidence" they have against me.

I don't think you ever have to prove your innocence against lie detector tests. It's still whatever evidence they collect against you that's going to make the case.

so why take it?

Simple, you're damned if you take it but more damned if you don't. If it's going to come down to the evidence regardless of whether or not I take the test, I might as well show a willingness to cooperate.

They only serve as a tool to help police officers, see if they are on the right track and shit..

I have had enough to do with the Police to know how unpredictable and unprofessional it can all get.

In other words, in the actual individual situation that one might be facing, the best course of action might have nothing to do with any speculations and preparations like ours here.

Simple, you're damned if you take it but more damned if you don't. If it's going to come down to the evidence regardless of whether or not I take the test, I might as well show a willingness to cooperate.

I was in situations where the willingness to cooperate was sometimes counted to my advantage, somemetimes to my disadvantage.

It seems one can't really know in advance which will be better.

Pretend you're accused of a crime you didn't commit. Would you take a lie detector test?
yes.
lie detector tests are not admissible as evidence against you in a court of law in the US.

Simple, you're damned if you take it but more damned if you don't. If it's going to come down to the evidence regardless of whether or not I take the test, I might as well show a willingness to cooperate.

Exactly.

I'd take the test, but I wouldn't rely on it. For all I know, I could be charged with terrorism and this is just a formality, But as others have said above, More dammned if i don't.

Pretend you're accused of a crime you didn't commit. Would you take a lie detector test?

Traditional heart-rate/respiration/galvanic skin response (technobabble for "sweat") lie detectors are little more that latter day voodoo. It might as well be measuring your body thetans. As with the old e-meter, its the guy conducting the test that matters. He (or she) interprets the results, which are from what I've read they are highly subjective.

There are supposedly newer ones that rely on CT scans, but I've seen no studies testing their efficacy.

The tests are mostly used to rattle suspects, and sometimes to weed out people who *might be* suspects (on the theory that, if they readily agree to the lie detector test, they are less likely to be guilty). If offered, you are probably better off taking the test, so that the police don't think it's suspicious that you refused.

I'd take the test even if I *had* committed the crime.

I'd take the test even if I *had* committed the crime.

It is interesting that the people who are most likely to fool a polygraph (drugs aside) are sociopaths.

Also, the more honest you are the more likely you are to be wrongfully judged a liar according to this site (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=polygraph_or_lie_detector.php)

Ironically, the more truthful a person is, the more likely it is that they will fail the polygraph test. The reason being that they are very comfortable answering the control questions and so do not produce a marked physiological response to them. When they are questioned about a crime, for example, they can become very nervous about facing such questions and produce a physiological response that is more pronounced than they did to the unthreatening control questions: this may be interpreted as lying.


They also provide some information on fooling a polygraph


The first line of defence is to produce a false strong physiological response to control questions; the second is to produce a false weak response to relevant questions. There are several methods for achieving both responses, and the result is that they will be interpreted as truthful or inconclusive answers as the control questions will have produced a larger response than the relevant questions.

An example of a countermeasure that was once used was the "drawing pin-in-the-shoe" method. When a control question was identified by the examinee, they would press their foot into the drawing pin to produce mild pain, resulting in an increased physiological response. These days polygraphers are aware of this method and will simply ask the examinee to remove their shoes before testing to eliminate it. That is an illustration of just how simple countermeasures are; there is nothing highly sophisticated about them.

Never trust a polygrapher. They may come across as friendly, helpful and sympathetic but they are not there to help examinees; they are there to interrogate them. That is what a polygraph test is; an interrogation. The false sense of empathy is just another form of deception that polygraphers use to elicit admissions.

The most famous case in which the polygraph was fooled is the Aldrich Ames case. Ames was a CIA agent who was spying for the Soviet Union. The CIA knew there was a mole in its ranks and so decided to polygraph everyone. Ames passed the test in 1986, and a subsequent one in 1991, which not only allowed him to continue to spy, but suspicion was moved from him and onto other agents who had difficulty in passing their polygraph tests.

Polygraphers state that they know when countermeasures are being employed. Again, this is a deception. There is no evidence that they can tell the difference between genuine and faked responses.

The important point to realise is that a polygraph is not foolproof: it is relatively straightforward to fool it.

It is interesting that the people who are most likely to fool a polygraph (drugs aside) are sociopaths.

Yes, probably because they are the ones who are not too uncomfortable to use manipulative strategies to cheat on such a test.


They also provide some information on fooling a polygraph

An example of a countermeasure that was once used was the "drawing pin-in-the-shoe" method. When a control question was identified by the examinee, they would press their foot into the drawing pin to produce mild pain, resulting in an increased physiological response. These days polygraphers are aware of this method and will simply ask the examinee to remove their shoes before testing to eliminate it. That is an illustration of just how simple countermeasures are; there is nothing highly sophisticated about them.

Hence probably the earlier suggestion in this thread that one control the sphincter muscle. That's one of the few things that the examiners can't control.

Yes, probably because they are the ones who are not too uncomfortable to use manipulative strategies to cheat on such a test.

They also don't feel any remorse for what they have done and are not afraid to fail the test. Or maybe I'm talking about psychopaths...

portable lie detector time...people...
http://www.spygadgets.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/lie-detector-tv.jpg

They also don't feel any remorse for what they have done and are not afraid to fail the test. Or maybe I'm talking about psychopaths...

More importantly they feel no guilt so they don't experience physiological changes when they lie.

More importantly they feel no guilt so they don't experience physiological changes when they lie.

Yes, that's what I meant :)

Even medical tests don't have an accuracy of 100%. So why would I risk my reputation on a technique which has the same validity as the reading of entrails?


Originally Posted by ashura
Simple, you're damned if you take it but more damned if you don't.


So you'd never exercise your right to remain silent?

Even medical tests don't have an accuracy of 100%. So why would I risk my reputation on a technique which has the same validity as the reading of entrails?



So you'd never exercise your right to remain silent?

You will also risk your reputation by refusing the test.
The test has some validity though..

I suppose this whole thing with whether to take a lie detector test or not comes down to how we respond to a morally or cognitively corrupt request.

How is it morally corrupt to ask?

There are cognitively and morally corrupt requests.

Taking a polygraph test, you might incriminate yourself. So being asked to take a polygraph test is actually asking you to do something that might incriminate you.
This is why this is a morally corrupt request.

Enmos:

You will also risk your reputation by refusing the test.


You risk your reputation by exercising the right to remain silent. Oh wait... no you don't. Because it can't be mentioned in court.


The test has some validity though..


Except when it comes to detecting moles in the FBI and CIA? Or when it comes to stripping perfectly honest individuals of the promotion they worked hard for? Or when it comes to the numerous clinical trials which demonstrate the fact that it's only slightly better than a random guess?

You risk your reputation by exercising the right to remain silent. Oh wait... no you don't. Because it can't be mentioned in court.
Nice tone.. had a rough day ? :rolleyes:
Ever hear of press ?

Except when it comes to detecting moles in the FBI and CIA? Or when it comes to stripping perfectly honest individuals of the promotion they worked hard for? Or when it comes to the numerous clinical trials which demonstrate the fact that it's only slightly better than a random guess?
So it has some value.. albeit only slightly better than a random guess.

..You risk your reputation by exercising the right to remain silent. Oh wait... no you don't. Because it can't be mentioned in court...

Nope it can't. But it always gets mentioned in the media to the general population. :mad: The general population who makes up your jury.

The general population, who is stringently examined by both the defense and prosecution before being admitted as jurors.

Lie detectors are RETARDED. An innocent person who would be nervous will fail the test. It's stooooopid!