LIE DETECTORS

This topic is actually a follow on this thread about April Jones murderer Mark Bridge.

Just to make this subject simple I am going to prempt that Bridge is found guilty and sentenced. In the process of being found guilty there would have been a trail with barristers and solicitors on the defence and prosecution benches plus a jury and sitting judge team. As you can imagine this is quite expensive and although Bridge has been found guilty there could have been a chance he could escape justice making the system not 100%. A daunting thought that final statement.

It has been documented somewhere that the advancement of lie detectors are such that they could quite easily replace the judging circuit therefore saving on the expense and bring justice to the world at a quicker rate. Also by accepting or trusting being a better word for this device it is also reported prevention of crime would dramatically increase. I can associate with this reduction in wrong doing from my time in the Middle East wear punishment so more severe. Although in the Middle East it was the punishment that help reduce it all I do believe if it was easier to prove wrong doing then the same level of prevention would be achieved.

So what are everyone's thoughts of bringing in a lie detector to act as jury and judge?

Machines can malfunction

I don't think they can ever be made 100% conclusive. I still think well trained people could cheat them or even as said above, machines can malfunction.

Machines can malfunction

Agreed. This is peoples lives at stake.

Machines can malfunction

Perhaps so but have been to be proved more reliable than human beings. You only have to look at such invention as guided bombs, robots in manufacturing industries etc to see their worthiness over the human thinking.

I don't think they can ever be made 100% conclusive. I still think well trained people could cheat them or even as said above, machines can malfunction.

Always will be that to consider but the difficulty in doing that would reduce that type of person.

Machines can malfunction

Agreed. This is peoples lives at stake.

Not sure what you are getting at here.

If they have improved then Maybe use it in conjunction with human judgement. But not conclusively, compulsive liars will probably piss the test they get an affair advantage. Not on.

Machines can malfunction

Agreed. This is peoples lives at stake.

Not sure what you are getting at here.

If these machines malfunction or get it wrong then innocent people could have their lives ruined or even go down for something they didn't do.

Machines can malfunction

Perhaps so but have been to be proved more reliable than human beings. You only have to look at such invention as guided bombs, robots in manufacturing industries etc to see their worthiness over the human thinking.

Human thinking made those machines, the highest powered computer is a minimal % of the human brain power.

I think that everyone deserves thier day in court even pond life like this guy. However I do believe that this type of equipment should be available to the authorities to help establish guilt. In this case his assertion that he cannot remember what he done to the poor innocent girl is bollocks and a lie detector test would I'm sure blow that out of the water.

But for me a trial by jury should remain and pond life like this tw*t should face having the details of thier terrible crimes exposed in court. There is forensic evidence in this case which proves his guilt and when that is done he should pay for his crime with his life.

Until such time as our polticians change the law and bring back public excecution, especially for twats who kill innocent children I fear there will be more of these terrible cases.

Like the tw*t who got 38 years for killing that girl and putting her body in the attic whats the point of putting this guy in a cell with him. Justice is better served at the end of a rope in my opinion.

For both of them

Machines can malfunction

Perhaps so but have been to be proved more reliable than human beings. You only have to look at such invention as guided bombs, robots in manufacturing industries etc to see their worthiness over the human thinking.

Human thinking made those machines, the highest powered computer is a minimal % of the human brain power.

Yes but still using more than the average human being.

Forensic and DnA science is advancing at an astronomical rate, very difficult to get away with murder now, won't be long until its impossible to get away with serious crime, with the advancements of science on the horizon. Wasn't so long ago they would have needed the physical evidence of a body to be able to charge you with murder.

Not a chance. AI is nowhere near the level required to make such a judgement.

A computer can not think on a humans level, look at the Turing test, and therefore it would be stupid to put such a decision in the hands of a machine. Those machines can be cheated and cognitive and body language experts have done so by using numerous methods from mental, learning to even body adaption techniques.

Most tests are around 91-97% accurate as well. There is reasonable doubt so how could they convict beyond reasonable doubt in court? It would never stand up.

This is what does my head in on Jeremy Kyle when they all jump down someones throat for failing a lie detector test. There is actually a high chance the person is telling the truth. The result isn't conclusive so the chance of someone on there who's telling the truth being made a liar is around 3-7/100 depending on the accuracy of the test.

So many issues with this proposal but I'll state a few.

1. Is it conceivable that the "machine" could malfunction?
2. Is it conceivable that the results of the "machine" could be tampered with in any way, to suit an agenda?
3. Is it conceivable that a "guilty" defendant could manipulate the results of the "machine" showing falsely that he / she is not lieing?
4. Why not just put an RFID Chip in every person so you know exactly where they are in real time......oh.....hang on a minute.....that's already started in USA, Brazil. etc......

If you trust in machines more than in your fellow man you're walking down a very dark alley.

So many issues with this proposal but I'll state a few.

1. Is it conceivable that the "machine" could malfunction?
2. Is it conceivable that the results of the "machine" could be tampered with in any way, to suit an agenda?
3. Is it conceivable that a "guilty" defendant could manipulate the results of the "machine" showing falsely that he / she is not lieing?
4. Why not just put an RFID Chip in every person so you know exactly where they are in real time......oh.....hang on a minute.....that's already started in USA, Brazil. etc......

If you trust in machines more than in your fellow man you're walking down a very dark alley.

I agree. At this point in technology, machines only do what humans tell them to do via code or other type of interaction i.e. speech, touch, etc.

They do some things more efficiently, others not so. The sooner more people realise this the better. All machines have a limit and that limit will never be breached until we fully understand the human body. How can we make a machine more like a human if we do not yet fully understand a human?

Searching, sorting, etc. machines do well but that is when there is defined preset data and it uses coded algorithms to carry out instructions to get the intended result. A machine does not have a mind of its own. Its all predetermined just as gamblers are in bookies to screw you over in most cases.

Not a chance. AI is nowhere near the level required to make such a judgement.

A computer can not think on a humans level, look at the Turing test, and therefore it would be stupid to put such a decision in the hands of a machine. Those machines can be cheated and cognitive and body language experts have done so by using numerous methods from mental, learning to even body adaption techniques.

Most tests are around 91-97% accurate as well. There is reasonable doubt so how could they convict beyond reasonable doubt in court? It would never stand up.

This is what does my head in on Jeremy Kyle when they all jump down someones throat for failing a lie detector test. There is actually a high chance the person is telling the truth. The result isn't conclusive so the chance of someone on there who's telling the truth being made a liar is around 3-7/100 depending on the accuracy of the test.

Now i dont agree with lie detectors yet, but your wording is shocking, how can you say most tests are 91-97% right, then say its a HIGH chance these people on JK are telling the truth when the machine states otherwise? I dont say under 10% chance of the machine being wrong is HIGH. High would be the oposite.

Jeremy kyle ffs

Jeremy kyle ffs

Could do with Jeremy Kyle to sort out some of the arguments that go on on this board sometimes

To be accurate the detectors need the subject to be willing to be tested.Without this they are about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Not a chance. AI is nowhere near the level required to make such a judgement.

A computer can not think on a humans level, look at the Turing test, and therefore it would be stupid to put such a decision in the hands of a machine. Those machines can be cheated and cognitive and body language experts have done so by using numerous methods from mental, learning to even body adaption techniques.

Most tests are around 91-97% accurate as well. There is reasonable doubt so how could they convict beyond reasonable doubt in court? It would never stand up.

This is what does my head in on Jeremy Kyle when they all jump down someones throat for failing a lie detector test. There is actually a high chance the person is telling the truth. The result isn't conclusive so the chance of someone on there who's telling the truth being made a liar is around 3-7/100 depending on the accuracy of the test.

Now i dont agree with lie detectors yet, but your wording is shocking, how can you say most tests are 91-97% right, then say its a HIGH chance these people on JK are telling the truth when the machine states otherwise? I dont say under 10% chance of the machine being wrong is HIGH. High would be the oposite.

There's more chance of someone on Jeremy Kyle telling the truth than there was of Mon Mome winning the national. Guess what? Mon Mome in 09 won the national at 100-1. I'd say in the circumstances thats very high. Would you like the be made out to be a liar on that off chance? I know I frigging wouldn't.

Most chances are 91%-97% right. That is not conclusive by any standard and its shocking that they are used in any official capacity at all.

I wanna put Gwyn on one !! You're a dirty little liar
And i will give him a DNA test to see if he really is Blue through and through "He came for the results but sometimes it isnt what they want to hear"

I wanna put Gwyn on one !! You're a dirty little liar
And i will give him a DNA test to see if he really is Blue through and through "He came for the results but sometimes it isnt what they want to hear"

Maybe we should also test everyone who's said they were at the away game at Rochdale on that horrible Thursday night to see who was actually there

I wanna put Gwyn on one !! You're a dirty little liar
And i will give him a DNA test to see if he really is Blue through and through "He came for the results but sometimes it isnt what they want to hear"

Maybe we should also test everyone who's said they were at the away game at Rochdale on that horrible Thursday night to see who was actually there

I am defo a dirty little liar on that one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22467640

Not accepted by scientific community.

Lie Detectors are complete bull that are only used on crap like Jeremy Kyle for entertainment purposes. Even they give some kind of statement before using to say their reliability is questionable.

There is a reason no law enforcement agency in the majority of the world use them and no court in the world accepts results from them as valid evidence. There is no decent evidence from the scientific community at all to suggest they work at anywhere near an acceptable accuracy level.

My missus just gives my balls a squeeze gradually getting a tighter grip until I relent and tell her what she wants.....

lets make it simple lie detectors are 91% to 96% accurate, sounds impressive when you say it like that, but if I said 1 in every 25 lie detector results are wrong, that would leave 1 in every 25 convicted people falsely convicted, thats why they are not used. Plus our justice system is based on the idea of proving peoples guilt. You have to prove my guilt I dont have to prove my innocence. Innocent until proven guilty.

With all due respect anyone who believes
That a machine can tell if your telling a lie or not
Is off their head.

With all due respect anyone who believes
That a machine can tell if your telling a lie or not
Is off their head.

Yes.