Lie detector test

steirishrover · 22-07-2017 01:16PM #1

Hi all

Just looking for some info on this. Was looking to get this done on someone family related to me and if agreed by them I want to pursue a Lie detector test on them.

Does anyone know what's the best route or company to go to if it did come to having to get this done.

Many thanks

coylemj · 22-07-2017 01:27PM

I've never heard of the results of a lie detector test being used in an Irish court. What do you hope to achieve by getting that person to submit to such a test?

M5 · 22-07-2017 01:28PM

Unscientific unreliable hokum

Fred Swanson · 22-07-2017 01:29PM

This post has been deleted.

Samuel T. Cogley · 22-07-2017 09:10PM

steirishrover wrote: »

Hi all

Just looking for some info on this. Was looking to get this done on someone family related to me and if agreed by them I want to pursue a Lie detector test on them.

Does anyone know what's the best route or company to go to if it did come to having to get this done.

Many thanks

You can buy an electronics kit and make one yourself.

Alternatively.

Fred Swanson · 22-07-2017 09:43PM

This post has been deleted.

Victor · 22-07-2017 09:47PM

coylemj wrote: »

I've never heard of the results of a lie detector test being used in an Irish court.

Often accepted in kangaroo courts, although they often prefer different tests.

hullaballoo · 22-07-2017 10:33PM

I came across a website purporting to offer such tests for use in court but whose main point about the admissibility of such evidence was that there's no reason for it not to be admitted.

Well, that's not quite true. One reason for it not to be admitted is that it has zero probative value. Another is that it's hearsay. Another is that you can't cross-examine the polygraph.

The only time this would be admissible would be if both parties agreed to admit it (which would never happen for obvious reasons) but, as above, it still has zero probative value, so it would be a complete waste of time (and quite considerable money.)

It would be like having a tarot card reader giving evidence.

L1011 · 22-07-2017 10:40PM

These are completely pointless - they are detectors of specific stress responses anyone who wants to prevent occurring can. At best they scare some idiots in to confessing, nothing else.

pillphil · 23-07-2017 03:52AM

hullaballoo wrote: »

I came across a website purporting to offer such tests for use in court but whose main point about the admissibility of such evidence was that there's no reason for it not to be admitted.

Well, that's not quite true. One reason for it not to be admitted is that it has zero probative value. Another is that it's hearsay. Another is that you can't cross-examine the polygraph.

The only time this would be admissible would be if both parties agreed to admit it (which would never happen for obvious reasons) but, as above, it still has zero probative value, so it would be a complete waste of time (and quite considerable money.)

It would be like having a tarot card reader giving evidence.

Genuine question, but would a tarot card reader's evidence be admissible evidence even if both parties agreed to it?

L1011 · 23-07-2017 04:18AM

pillphil wrote: »

Genuine question, but would a tarot card reader's evidence be admissible evidence even if both parties agreed to it?

If a defendent agreed to have someone say "they're definitely guilty, the cards show it" or the prosecution agreed to "they're definitely innocent, the cards show it", I'd be quite happy with the idiocy being rewarded. I'm fairly certain it'd never be accepted though.

pillphil · 23-07-2017 04:47AM

L1011 wrote: »

If a defendent agreed to have someone say "they're definitely guilty, the cards show it" or the prosecution agreed to "they're definitely innocent, the cards show it", I'd be quite happy with the idiocy being rewarded. I'm fairly certain it'd never be accepted though.

I'm thinking more in a scenario where the testimony of the tarot card reader (or lie detector test for that matter) was unknown, and the reading or test hadn't happened yet?

Or would the reading or test need to have already have happened before it would be considered evidence?

Victor · 23-07-2017 04:59AM

Don't tarot card readers deal with the future, whereas most court cases are about the past?

pillphil · 23-07-2017 05:25AM

I think most cold reading is largely dependent on past events and cooperation from the readee (is there a real word for this?).

Are Am Eye · 23-07-2017 11:25AM

pillphil wrote: »

I think most cold reading is largely dependent on past events and cooperation from the readee (is there a real word for this?).

real word is 'mark'

However you only speak of the charlatans.

I presumed we were talking about real tarot card readers. Obviously
they are employing the power of voodoo.

Fred Swanson · 23-07-2017 11:37AM

This post has been deleted.

Samuel T. Cogley · 23-07-2017 01:35PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Specific circumstances with very specific tests with very specific goals with specific people. Did I mention specific at all? :pac:

The US have also been more willing to accept 'bleedin' edge' it's lead to an over reliance on DNA and some incidence of forays into junk science.

Lie detector test

Welcome!

Comments

Welcome!