NationStates Jolt Archive

Given the whole debate about truth serums, legality and trials going on in the other thread, I've been wondering about this particular aspect of trials. Assuming there is a lie detector with very high probabilities (95%) of detecting lies from truth, would you be fine with them being used regularly in courts to determine the fact from fabrication? After all, you're supposed to swear to tell the truth and nothing but in most courts after all, and witness testimonies have been known to be wrong some times, so why not an extra precautionary step?

So what does NSG think? Yes? No? Why?

Given the whole debate about truth serums, legality and trials going on in the other thread, I've been wondering about this particular aspect of trials. Assuming there is a lie detector with very high probabilities (95%) of detecting lies from truth, would you be fine with them being used regularly in courts to determine the fact from fabrication? After all, you're supposed to swear to tell the truth and nothing but in most courts after all, and witness testimonies have been known to be wrong some times, so why not an extra precautionary step?

So what does NSG think? Yes? No? Why?

no, I think it'd be a violation of the 5th amendment.

Aren't they usually used before court?

no, I think it'd be a violation of the 5th amendment.

Self incrimination? But why? If you can show a witness or defendant is lying in court with evidence or what have you, that's not violating the 5th amendment at all. What makes a lie detector different?

Aren't they usually used before court?

Rarely I think, and that's usually only during police investigations, if at all IIRC.

no, I think it'd be a violation of the 5th amendment.

Ooh, interesting. I never considered that it could be considered self-incrimination.

No, 95% probability leaves too large a chance that it could still register a false positive. Also, there is no way to cross examine the machine.

Self incrimination? But why? If you can show a witness or defendant is lying in court with evidence or what have you, that's not violating the 5th amendment at all. What makes a lie detector different?

Because giving a false statement would, by itself, demonstrate that the statement is false, which means by the very act of giving the statement, you've incriminated yourself.

Self incrimination? But why? If you can show a witness or defendant is lying in court with evidence or what have you, that's not violating the 5th amendment at all. What makes a lie detector different?

Because a squiggly line doesn't replace lies with truth, it just catches lies.

What if it were voluntary? I know that that would too easily give relief to the lying liars but it could still prove useful.

Because a squiggly line doesn't replace lies with truth, it just catches lies.

exactly. the 5th prevents me from having to make a statement that MIGHT incriminate me. When asked a question, I may tell the truth, or I may lie.

If I lie, that lying statement will be shown to be a lie by the detector. As such, the lie, by itself, will incriminate me.

No, 95% probability leaves too large a chance that it could still register a false positive. Also, there is no way to cross examine the machine.

And what about 100% probability then? I know at least one person voted no even at 100% probability.

Because giving a false statement would, by itself, demonstrate that the statement is false, which means by the very act of giving the statement, you've incriminated yourself.

Huh? If you give a false statement to begin with, and someone catches you giving that false statement in court, it becomes a fifth amendment violation? What's the point of swearing to tell the truth in courts then?

Because a squiggly line doesn't replace lies with truth, it just catches lies.

And isn't part of the trial process to separate the lies from the truth?

Yes, but only at 100% accuracy...

the Movie "Liar Liar" comes to mind, lol...

And what about 100% probability then? I know at least one person voted no even at 100% probability.
Then you run into Neo Art's 5th Amendment issue.

Then you run into Neo Art's 5th Amendment issue.

That's the thing I don't get. How can showing what the person is saying to be a lie be a 5th amendment violation? How is a prosecutor going to make a case if he can't show that the defendant isn't telling the truth without violating the 5th amendment?

And isn't part of the trial process to separate the lies from the truth?

True, but if telling the truth would incriminate you(because you did something illegal), but lying will incriminate you(because lying in court is a crime), then you can't say anything which makes you look guilty.

You're fucked.

Then you run into Neo Art's 5th Amendment issue.

And believe me, you DONT want to do that, lmao :hail:

That's the thing I don't get. How can showing what the person is saying to be a lie be a 5th amendment violation? How is a prosecutor going to make a case if he can't show that the defendant isn't telling the truth without violating the 5th amendment?

You can absolutely show someone not to be telling the truth without violating the 5th Amendment. Nothing in the 5th Amendment precludes the ability to point to evidence that someone is a liar. It simply means that you cannot be forced to give evidence against yourself.

Neo Art, I wonder if one could challenge your argument by pointing out that one would still have the right not to testify at all, though. What do you think?

True, but if telling the truth would incriminate you(because you did something illegal), but lying will incriminate you(because lying in court is a crime), then you can't say anything which makes you look guilty.

You're fucked.

You can choose to remain silent I believe.

You can absolutely show someone not to be telling the truth without violating the 5th Amendment. Nothing in the 5th Amendment precludes the ability to point to evidence that someone is a liar. It simply means that you cannot be forced to give evidence against yourself.

As you've pointed out, you can choose not to testify at all. All I'm asking in this scenario is the acceptability of including lie detectors with high or perfect detection methods, that's it. The existing options of a defendant/witness would still remain.

That's the thing I don't get. How can showing what the person is saying to be a lie be a 5th amendment violation? How is a prosecutor going to make a case if he can't show that the defendant isn't telling the truth without violating the 5th amendment?

(Won't make this argument as well as Neo Art could)

Because with a 100% correct lie detector there would be no way of opting out of the test without incriminating yourself to the Court. This would then force you to make a statement that would either a) incriminate yourself or b) be used in a way that would mean you have incriminated yourself.

(Won't make this argument as well as Neo Art could)

Because with a 100% correct lie detector there would be no way of opting out of the test without incriminating yourself to the Court. This would then force you to make a statement that would either a) incriminate yourself or b) be used in a way that would mean you have incriminated yourself.

Not that I want to argue with that any longer...but, cant help but throw my two cents in the pot, lol...

Im thinking maybe you could decline to use the Lie Detector...maybe give the accused the choice...Although thatd probably look very bad to the jury...

I'm thinking maybe you could decline to use the Lie Detector... maybe give the accused the choice... Although that'd probably look very bad to the jury...

Indeed, and this would then be self incrimination by implication...

Which is annoying judicially, but hey, freedom ain't free...

Indeed, and this would then be self incrimination by implication...

Which is annoying judicially, but hey, freedom ain't free...

Agreed...Seems I have reached a similar quandary here too...

I think they should in principle...But, Practicality says itd never stand up to the 5th Amendment...

Neo Art, I wonder if one could challenge your argument by pointing out that one would still have the right not to testify at all, though. What do you think?

sure, fine, ok. And if you want to strap an infallable lie detector to every witness, on the justification that they'd be allowed to refuse, then nobody would testify about anything, ever.

If it were voluntary, I feel as if lawyers, pretty much across the board, would advise their clients to not take the lie detector. Even if they felt their clients would pass.


But I'm not quite sure why I feel that way...

As you've pointed out, you can choose not to testify at all.

then every single person could get out of testifying in any court case, ever, by simply stating "if you ask me I will lie, which will incriminate me, thus I decline to testify"

Which means nobody would ever testify about anything.

I think they should in principle...But, Practicality says itd never stand up to the 5th Amendment...

But how about this - if there was (keeping it hypothetical here) a way of having a 100% accurate lie detector, would the potential for justice be changed so drastically that the arguments behind the 5th Ammendment would be undermined?

sure, fine, ok. And if you want to strap an infallable lie detector to every witness, on the justification that they'd be allowed to refuse, then nobody would testify about anything, ever.

Right, I forgot about the infallible part. That would sorta wreck that argument.

But how about this - if there was (keeping it hypothetical here) a way of having a 100% accurate lie detector, would the potential for justice be changed so drastically that the arguments behind the 5th Ammendment would be undermined?

Philosophically yes, i believe so...

But, again, practically...I dont think Lawyers would ever let such a situation come to pass...

Its always been the sort of "Darkside" of the Justice System...

then every single person could get out of testifying in any court case, ever, by simply stating "if you ask me I will lie, which will incriminate me, thus I decline to testify"

Which means nobody would ever testify about anything.

Even if the defendant chooses not to testify at all, that doesn't mean the trial won't go on does it? Choosing not to testify at all may end up worse for the defendant/witness.

exactly. the 5th prevents me from having to make a statement that MIGHT incriminate me. When asked a question, I may tell the truth, or I may lie.

If I lie, that lying statement will be shown to be a lie by the detector. As such, the lie, by itself, will incriminate me.

Hrm...is actually self-incriminating if it's a witness testifying, though? I'm not talking about the actual defendant, but rather witnesses testifying in the case. They aren't on trial for perjury, they're simply relating information. In the same sense that using a video camera to monitor a store for break-ins and identification isn't illegal because when used in court it's kind of self-incriminating, I'm not sure a lie detector on a witness would be self-incrimination either.

Obviously, a person cannot be put under lie detector in their own case, but, again, a witness?

Philosophically yes, i believe so...

But, again, practically...I dont think Lawyers would ever let such a situation come to pass...

Its always been the sort of "Darkside" of the Justice System...

This is probably true - it would completely remove the need for lawyers as a profession.

And with that worrying thought for the use of my future Law degree, I shall go to bed...

:eek2:

Even if the defendant chooses not to testify at all, that doesn't mean the trial won't go on does it? Choosing not to testify at all may end up worse for the defendant/witness.

Yeah, I think thats whats being argued is Implied Self Incrimination...

Yeah, I think thats whats being argued is Implied Self Incrimination...

If so, where do admissions of guilt and confessions fit in then? Isn't that also a 5th amendment violation? Or does that only apply to external sources?

And then, again, what is the fundamental difference between a prosecutor showing what you've said to be a lie as opposed to a machine?

If so, where do admissions of guilt and confessions fit in then? Isn't that also a 5th amendment violation?

If you can't waive a right if you choose to, is it a right?

If so, where do admissions of guilt and confessions fit in then? Isn't that also a 5th amendment violation?

Well, im not studying law...Im studying Medicine, lol...

But, i believe that even with a confession, a lawyer still has to present it to the Jury...

So, its not technically self incrimination...

Hrm...is actually self-incriminating if it's a witness testifying, though? I'm not talking about the actual defendant, but rather witnesses testifying in the case. They aren't on trial for perjury, they're simply relating information.

I still think so, yes. I can't be compelled to state anything that could incriminate me in any crime. If I'm hooked up to an infallible lie detector and I lie, the very act of making the statement incriminates me of perjury.

It's very different from further evidence that proves I'm lying, the lie ITSELF becomes the evidence, thus the proof that I'm lying becomes inexorably linked to the statement, to the extent that the statement itself is incriminatory.

Well, im not studying law...Im studying Medicine, lol...

But, i believe that even with a confession, a lawyer still has to present it to the Jury...

So, its not technically self incrimination...

Just imagine they cure all dieases.
Now you know how bad we'd feel!!

If so, where do admissions of guilt and confessions fit in then? Isn't that also a 5th amendment violation?

As long as those confessions are voluntary there's no violation. It only prevents you from being COMPELLED to make incriminatory statements. You can make one of your own free will, if you so choose, and it's perfectly admissible, provided you've been informed of your right NOT to.

Or does that only apply to external sources?

No, it implies only to involuntary statements, not voluntary ones. The 5th amendment problem can be alleviated by making the test voluntary, but then nobody would do it.


And then, again, what is the fundamental difference between a prosecutor showing what you've said to be a lie as opposed to a machine?

Extrinsic versus intrinsic. A prosecutor can show, through extrinsic evidence, that your statement was false. With a lie detector, the statement ITSELF becomes the evidence

Just imagine they cure all dieases.
Now you know how bad we'd feel!!

WEEeelll...Theyd still need people to Administer the Cure, ;) lol

some people might be interested to know that what's being described already has a legal term, it's referred to as "the cruel trilemma" (no, seriously, look it up).

It basically means this. If someone has committed a crime, and is asked in court "did you do it" the person has three options. Admit it, and incriminate himself, refuse to answer and be in contempt of court, or lie, and commit perjury. It basically means that the individual has no good option. Thus, we have the 5th amendment, as it "reflects many of our fundamental values and most noble aspirations: our unwillingness to subject those suspected of crime to the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt" Murphy v. Waterfront Com’n of New York Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (1964)

some people might be interested to know that what's being described already has a legal term, it's referred to as "the cruel trilemma" (no, seriously, look it up).

It basically means this. If someone has committed a crime, and is asked in court "did you do it" the person has three options. Admit it, and incriminate himself, refuse to answer and be in contempt of court, or lie, and commit perjury. It basically means that the individual has no good option. Thus, we have the 5th amendment, as it "reflects many of our fundamental values and most noble aspirations: our unwillingness to subject those suspected of crime to the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt" Murphy v. Waterfront Com’n of New York Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (1964)

Thank you.

No, it implies only to involuntary statements, not voluntary ones. The 5th amendment problem can be alleviated by making the test voluntary, but then nobody would do it.

The test is voluntary in the sense of the right to keep silent. Assuming the machine doesn't need to be strapped to the person and can sit in the corner of a court, the defendant can choose not to testify at all, although I think that usually doesn't go so well for the defendant even without the inclusion of lie detectors.


Extrinsic versus intrinsic. A prosecutor can show, through extrinsic evidence, that your statement was false. With a lie detector, the statement ITSELF becomes the evidence

But evidence of what? That you've lied? Isn't there usually penalties associated for lying in court, which is the point? That's why you swear to tell the truth and nothing but in a trial isn't it?

The test is voluntary in the sense of the right to keep silent. Assuming the machine doesn't need to be strapped to the person and can sit in the corner of a court, the defendant can choose not to testify at all, although I think that usually doesn't go so well for the defendant even without the inclusion of lie detectors.


Well, I think its more along the lines of it being pointless...

All Lawyers would advice against it, regardless of Innocence or Guilt...

So why have the Lie Detector there in the first place?

Speaking of cruelty, this prolonged period of not being silly is very unnatural for me. So I will post the following Public Service Message;

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/tacos.jpg

It's very different from further evidence that proves I'm lying, the lie ITSELF becomes the evidence, thus the proof that I'm lying becomes inexorably linked to the statement, to the extent that the statement itself is incriminatory.
See, my problem is that the lie itself is evidence that it is a lie, which is a crime that is not a component of the case (again, assuming this is only something a witness can opt to do). I'm sure you're right about it, but, again, there is something my intuition is grasping at that makes me question the logic behind it that I can't quite see, yet.

some people might be interested to know that what's being described already has a legal term, it's referred to as "the cruel trilemma" (no, seriously, look it up).

It basically means this. If someone has committed a crime, and is asked in court "did you do it" the person has three options. Admit it, and incriminate himself, refuse to answer and be in contempt of court, or lie, and commit perjury. It basically means that the individual has no good option. Thus, we have the 5th amendment, as it "reflects many of our fundamental values and most noble aspirations: our unwillingness to subject those suspected of crime to the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt" Murphy v. Waterfront Com’n of New York Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (1964)

That's in regards to a defendant being used as a witness in his own trial, though, isn't it? For a witness, there is no trilemma because the self-accusation part isn't applicable. It'd just be perjury, contempt or...truthful testimony, I guess.

The test is voluntary in the sense of the right to keep silent. Assuming the machine doesn't need to be strapped to the person and can sit in the corner of a court, the defendant can choose not to testify at all, although I think that usually doesn't go so well for the defendant even without the inclusion of lie detectors.


I'm not talking about the defendant, the defendant already has the right to not testify, thus any of his testimony is voluntary.

I'm talking about witnesses, whose testimony isn't always voluntary. When the prosecutors want you to testify, they tend to MAKE you testify, by subpoena.


But evidence of what? That you've lied? Isn't there usually penalties associated for lying in court, which is the point? That's why you swear to tell the truth and nothing but in a trial isn't it?

Of course there are penalties, that's the problem. It's a crime. and you can't make me say something that incriminates me in a crime.

Of course there are penalties, that's the problem. It's a crime. and you can't make me say something that incriminates me in a crime.

Ah....this triggered something. I think the crux of what is bothering me is that by this logic the crime itself is evidence of the crime. This is both tautological and nonsensical in the context of law, I think. The evidence of crime is the recording of a negative result from a witness's statement under oath, not the statement itself, necessarily. In the same sense that evidence of a murder is not the murder itself, but the fingerprints, bloodstains and video of the man singing, "I'm murdering this person, I'm murdering this person!" as they murder some person. The criminal act itself is distinctly separate from the evidence thereof.

See, my problem is that the lie itself is evidence that it is a lie, which is a crime that is not a component of the case (again, assuming this is only something a witness can opt to do). I'm sure you're right about it, but, again, there is something my intuition is grasping at that makes me question the logic behind it that I can't quite see, yet.

I see your issue, let me try to explain. You're right, if you are charged for murder, and during that murder case, I lie, setting off the detector, the evidence that my statement is a lie is not a component in your murder case, absolutely right.

But it sure as hell will be evidence in MY upcoming perjury trial. Which is the point. The 5th amendment doesn't just prevent you from having to make incriminating statements of the crimes you have been charged with, it prevents you from having to make ANY incriminating statements, relating to ANY crimes that you have been, or may in the future be, charged with



That's in regards to a defendant being used as a witness in his own trial, though, isn't it? For a witness, there is no trilemma because the self-accusation part isn't applicable. It'd just be perjury, contempt or...truthful testimony, I guess.

True, and you make a good argument here. If you believe the sole purpose of the 5th is to prevent that trilemma, then it doesn't apply here, because the witness just has to tell the truth and no harm shall come (unless the truth implicates him too, in which case he can plead the 5th).

However I think you can apply it broadly, to the perspective that the possibility that the person will lie creates the inherent implication that a statement might be incriminatory by itself.

Didnt they do this on an episode of Chappelle's Show?

I see your issue, let me try to explain. You're right, if you are charged for murder, and during that murder case, I lie, setting off the detector, the evidence that my statement is a lie is not a component in your murder case, absolutely right.

But it sure as hell will be evidence in MY upcoming perjury trial. Which is the point. The 5th amendment doesn't just prevent you from having to make incriminating statements of the crimes you have been charged with, it prevents you from having to make ANY incriminating statements, relating to ANY crimes that you have been, or may in the future be, charged with





True, and you make a good argument here. If you believe the sole purpose of the 5th is to prevent that trilemma, then it doesn't apply here, because the witness just has to tell the truth and no harm shall come (unless the truth implicates him too, in which case he can plead the 5th).

However I think you can apply it broadly, to the perspective that the possibility that the person will lie creates the inherent implication that a statement might be incriminatory by itself.

Hrmm....and now I'm thinking the main issue is still that by allowing such a thing to occur on the witness stand, legal issues aside, it places a desire in the justice system to bring people to trial simply to make others stand witness who they could not get to in any other way.

Ah....this triggered something. I think the crux of what is bothering me is that by this logic the crime itself is evidence of the crime. This is both tautological and nonsensical in the context of law, I think. The evidence of crime is the recording of a negative result from a witness's statement under oath, not the statement itself, necessarily. In the same sense that evidence of a murder is not the murder itself, but the fingerprints, bloodstains and video of the man singing, "I'm murdering this person, I'm murdering this person!" as they murder some person. The criminal act itself is distinctly separate from the evidence thereof.

yes, I see your point, basically you're saying the evidence is the reaction of the lie detector test. It's not "I said it" but "this is what the machine did". Fair enough, but one problem.

Let's say I state, under oath, that at the night in question I was not with the defendant and was, in fact, asleep in my bed

Now let's say video tape evidence exists of me out gambling with the defendant, the night I said I was alone in bed. That's evidence that I lied. It's evidence that can be used against me in my perjury trial. However, that evidence, the video tape, would have existed whether I lied or not. Lie, tell the truth, the tape was always there.

However, if your argument is "the evidence is the lie detector reacting the way it did", the response is "the evidence would not exist but for my statement, there would have been no reaction if I had said nothing, ergo the lie detector test reaction is entirely dependent
on me having uttered the statement". Which is very unlike the video tape, which exists independently of the statement.

Yes, sure, the evidence is the test reaction, but there would have been no reaction but for the statement. therefore the very act of making the statement supplies the evidence against me.

I'm not talking about the defendant, the defendant already has the right to not testify, thus any of his testimony is voluntary.

I'm talking about witnesses, whose testimony isn't always voluntary.

In which case, the witness only has to tell the truth as they remember it do they not?


Of course there are penalties, that's the problem. It's a crime. and you can't make me say something that incriminates me in a crime.

Here's the thing I do not understand. Perjury is a crime. Yet showing that you have committed perjury from your statements is not permissible if shown by a machine analysis of said statements as opposed to showing that you have committed perjury using external evidence.

It is very puzzling to me.

Also, I don't think I said the detector would be limited to just the defendant/witness... which would probably produce some different results I imagine, but we'll set that aside for another day.

yes, I see your point, basically you're saying the evidence is the reaction of the lie detector test. It's not "I said it" but "this is what the machine did". Fair enough, but one problem.

Let's say I state, under oath, that at the night in question I was not with the defendant and was, in fact, asleep in my bed

Now let's say video tape evidence exists of me out gambling with the defendant, the night I said I was alone in bed. That's evidence that I lied. It's evidence that can be used against me in my perjury trial. However, that evidence, the video tape, would have existed whether I lied or not. Lie, tell the truth, the tape was always there.

However, if your argument is "the evidence is the lie detector reacting the way it did", the response is "the evidence would not exist but for my statement, there would have been no reaction if I had said nothing, ergo the lie detector test reaction is entirely dependent
on me having uttered the statement". Which is very unlike the video tape, which exists independently of the statement.

Yes, sure, the evidence is the test reaction, but there would have been no reaction but for the statement. therefore the very act of making the statement supplies the evidence against me.

I might argue that the video recording is still dependent upon the act of lying as regards its existence in terms of legal relevance. However, that's obviously legally bankrupt as an argument and I'm really just having fun with theory and logic. =p

Something about this still feels off to me, but not as off a before. Maybe it'll come to me later, but for now I submit that you win this round.

Something about this still feels off to me, but not as off a before. Maybe it'll come to me later, but for now I submit that you win this round.

Isnt that just the best analogy for Court Cases in general, lol

Here's the thing I do not understand. Perjury is a crime. Yet showing that you have committed perjury from your statements is not permissible if shown by a machine analysis of said statements as opposed to showing that you have committed perjury using external evidence.

It is very puzzling to me.

It's as I said, the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic. A video tape of me with the defendant exists whether I lie about it or not. If I lie about it, the tape can be used as evidence that I lied.

A lie detector reaction, however, is entirely dependent on me making the statement. The tape exists either way, but the lie detector only demonstrates my statement as false if and when I make a false statement.

As such, the very fact that I made the statement is what creates the evidence that the statement is false. Which means that by the very act of making the statement I incriminated myself. Which is what the 5th amendment prohibits.

It's as I said, the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic. A video tape of me with the defendant exists whether I lie about it or not. If I lie about it, the tape can be used as evidence that I lied.

A lie detector reaction, however, is entirely dependent on me making the statement. The tape exists either way, but the lie detector only demonstrates my statement as false if and when I make a false statement.

As such, the very fact that I made the statement is what creates the evidence that the statement is false. Which means that by the very act of making the statement I incriminated myself. Which is what the 5th amendment prohibits.

But if you never lied about where you were or said nothing, then the tape would not serve as evidence that you lied, because you didn't. In both cases, you still needed to knowingly make a statement that was false.

I totally don't see the objection.

Lemme give an analogy here: Suppose I commit a murder in a room with a security camera. I am incriminating myself by being stupid enough to do it in a room with a camera, but the film is still admissible in court, since I wasn't forced into incriminating myself, I did it myself.

Same thing if I lie under oath while hooked up to a lie detector. If I lie, the lie detector will record it and I get charged with perjury, but this doesn't mean the detector isn't admissible because it is still my fault I incriminated myself.

But if you never lied about where you were or said nothing, then the tape would not serve as evidence that you lied, because you didn't. In both cases, you still needed to knowingly make a statement that was false.

By the way, I know what this is really about and it won't work. You'll never prove it was me that replaced your front porch with a vat of oatmeal.

By the way, I know what this is really about and it won't work. You'll never prove it was me that replaced your front porch with a vat of oatmeal.

I don't have a front porch, never had. But I hear your neighbor is very angry right about now.

Something about this still feels off to me, but not as off a before.

I think I might know what that is, tell me if I get it.

If one can tell absolutely if someone is lying, why make perjury a crime in the first place?

The only reasons I can see for perjury to be a crime are to provide an incentive to tell the truth (by threat of punishment), or to serve justice by punishing someone for a harmful statement.

The first reason doesn't matter if you have a 100% accurate test. The test itself is an adequate incentive to tell the truth. What's the point in lying anymore since everyone will be able to know about it anyway? The whole reason for lying is to deceive others so, if you indirectly tell the truth even if you lie, why bother?

The second reason also becomes irrelevant, since your statement can't be harmful if it is impossible to deceive anyone in the first place.

If such an accurate test were to exist, then one could simply abolish any penalties tied to perjury. Problem solved (maybe, I don't know jack shit about law or much else).

I don't have a front porch, never had. But I hear your neighbor is very angry right about now.

That's nothing new. For some reason, all my neighbors have put in high fences and thick hedges over the last few years. :)

That's nothing new. For some reason, all my neighbors have put in high fences and thick hedges over the last few years. :)

Did you notice the tesla coils?

Did you notice the tesla coils?

Not at first, but I know about them now. :(

Not at first, but I know about them now. :(

It certainly must have... sparked your interest.

then every single person could get out of testifying in any court case, ever, by simply stating "if you ask me I will lie, which will incriminate me, thus I decline to testify"

Which means nobody would ever testify about anything.

Well... Every single person that could be put into a situation of self incrimination.

I'd like to see it used if it were at 100% (wishes... with the money shortage in the justice system in Italy ad in Czech Republic). It would cut trial times.

And before Neo jumps at me that I'm not qualified.
a) Italy, Czech Republic... Other system here, and no 5th.
b) While I myself am not qualified, I work for tribunals and usually my stance on laws is dictated by discussion of the matter with judges or advocates.

It certainly must have... sparked your interest.

Fortunately, it struck me in the testicles so there was no permanent damage. *nod*

some people might be interested to know that what's being described already has a legal term, it's referred to as "the cruel trilemma" (no, seriously, look it up).

It basically means this. If someone has committed a crime, and is asked in court "did you do it" the person has three options. Admit it, and incriminate himself, refuse to answer and be in contempt of court, or lie, and commit perjury. It basically means that the individual has no good option. Thus, we have the 5th amendment, as it "reflects many of our fundamental values and most noble aspirations: our unwillingness to subject those suspected of crime to the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt" Murphy v. Waterfront Com’n of New York Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (1964)

Italian law gets around the problem by taking the defendant's witness without swearing him in (technically he is making a statement, not a witness. It's up to the court to decide if they are to believe him).

Fortunately, it struck me in the testicles so there was no permanent damage. *nod*

That's what they all say LG. That's what they all say...

And I know you were trying to distract me. :p

Italian law gets around the problem by taking the defendant's witness without swearing him in (technically he is making a statement, not a witness. It's up to the court to decide if they are to believe him).

That's an interesting way of doing it. Taking out perjury charges and bringing in the lie detector means that there isn't a case of self incrimination anymore. What say you to that then Neo?

Lie dectectors are pseudoscientific crap. Most questions asked in them are false (the ones they say "provide a baseline for truth") - the operator doesn't even take them into account when scoring. Cheating lie detectors is easy. It's simple and counterintuitive - simply lie for all questions.

Lie detectors will never be 95% accurate, because stress does not equal a lie 95% of the time.

Lie dectectors are pseudoscientific crap. Most questions asked in them are false (the ones they say "provide a baseline for truth") - the operator doesn't even take them into account when scoring. Cheating lie detectors is easy. It's simple and counterintuitive - simply lie for all questions.

I take it you've undergone an actual test with a skilled operator?

Lie detectors will never be 95% accurate, because stress does not equal a lie 95% of the time.

Not all lie detectors operate on the basis of stress in the subject.

Lie dectectors are pseudoscientific crap. Most questions asked in them are false (the ones they say "provide a baseline for truth") - the operator doesn't even take them into account when scoring. Cheating lie detectors is easy. It's simple and counterintuitive - simply lie for all questions.

if an operator suspects is that is the case then they word the question to where lying is incriminating.

That's an interesting way of doing it. Taking out perjury charges and bringing in the lie detector means that there isn't a case of self incrimination anymore. What say you to that then Neo?

I suppose...I mean theoretically if there was such a thing as a totally infallible test, then, as someone pointed out, the crime of perjury would be sorta irrelevant anyway..

I suppose...I mean theoretically if there was such a thing as a totally infallible test, then, as someone pointed out, the crime of perjury would be sorta irrelevant anyway..

Technically, if there was some sort of "hot seat" that would 100% show if you were lying or omitting the truth in any way, the mere act of sitting in it would be a violation of the 5th Amendment, because you would be incriminating yourself.

So essentially polygraphs are used in the US because they are not accurate - if they were it would be a violation of the 5th Amendment? Gotta love that logic.

So essentially polygraphs are used in the US because they are not accurate - if they were it would be a violation of the 5th Amendment? Gotta love that logic.

Not sure how you came to that one...

I'm not inclined to believe the results because they are a product of the skill of the interrogator, who might well have gotten the truth without the machine.

I think that yes, lie detectors should be allowed into court, at 95% accuracy. I know that this is, apparently, a clear violation of the 5th Amendment of the constitution and all that but it occurs to me that people being tried in court have, in many ocassions, violated the rights of others.

If you are a witness in a case, can you opt not to testify by pleading the 5th even if a lawyer subpoenas you?

If you are a witness in a case, can you opt not to testify by pleading the 5th even if a lawyer subpoenas you?

Yes.

I think a pertinent fact that everyone's ignoring here is that lie detectors are complete and utter baloney, and have only managed to infiltrate the public consciousness as in any way accurate because of their portrayal on TV-land.

Wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Reliability)
here is little scientific evidence to support the reliability of polygraphs.[16][17] Despite claims of 90% - 95% reliability, critics charge that rather than a "test", the method amounts to an inherently unstandardizable interrogation technique whose accuracy cannot be established. A 1997 survey of 421 psychologists estimated the test's average accuracy at about 61%, a little better than chance.[18] Critics also argue that even given high estimates of the polygraph's accuracy a significant number of subjects (e.g. 10% given a 90% accuracy) will appear to be lying, and would unfairly suffer the consequences of "failing" the polygraph. In the 1998 Supreme Court case, United States v. Scheffer, the majority stated that “There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable” and “Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion...”.[19]

That's what they all say LG. That's what they all say...

And I know you were trying to distract me. :p

I needed some silly and I knew you were good for it. ;)

Yes.

what? No. Absolutely not. You can only use the 5th amendment to avoid testifying on matters that may incriminate you personally.

If you just WITNESSED a crime, and are subpoenaed to testify as to what you witnessed, that testimony is not self incriminating, and the 5th amendment has no baring on that matter.

The only time the 5th amendment can be used by a non defendant witness is when the witness is a co-conspirator, and testifying would incriminate himself in the conspiracy, or when the nature of the testimony would incriminate him in some other crime.

The 5th amendment is ONLY useful in preventing you from having to give testimony against YOURSELF, or testimony that can be used against YOU in a criminal proceeding. It affords absolutely no protection what so ever in situations where your testimony can not incriminate you in some crime, such as "what did you see that day?"

Stop pretending to be a lawyer DK.

So essentially polygraphs are used in the US because they are not accurate - if they were it would be a violation of the 5th Amendment? Gotta love that logic.

actually incorrect. Polygraphs are NOT used in the US, or, rather, their results are NOT admissible evidence. That's because polygraph tests have not been shown to be sufficiently scientifically reliable, and as such, their introduction would violate the rules of evidence (can't bring in evidence that is not scientifically obtained, same as you can't bring in someone's horoscope or tarot card reading).

You CAN take a polygraph test, and sometimes, especially if you're innocent, it may be wise to do so, since if you pass, the police and prosecutors don't look at you as intently, and thus it's useful for getting yourself ruled out as a suspect and keeping off prosecutor's radar, but even if you fail the fact that you failed CAN NOT be brought up in trial.

Polygraph tests ARE NOT admissible evidence simply because they are unreliable. If they WERE reliable, they'd probably STILL not be admissible in court (unless taken voluntarily) because it'd probably be a 5th amendment violation to require someone to take one, for the reasons I said.

If lie detectors were 100% accurate I would assume that the 5th Amendment would be amended so that people would have to make self-incriminating statements or anyone who invokes that right would be looked upon as automatically guilty for whatever crime they were charged with.

Technically, if there was some sort of "hot seat" that would 100% show if you were lying or omitting the truth in any way, the mere act of sitting in it would be a violation of the 5th Amendment, because you would be incriminating yourself.

This.

If lie detectors were 100% accurate I would assume that the 5th Amendment would be amended so that people would have to make self-incriminating statements or anyone who invokes that right would be looked upon as automatically guilty for whatever crime they were charged with.

I highly doubt it, in fact, if lie detectors were 100% accurate I think you'd see even STRONGER support for the 5th amendment. It exists for that very reason, so that you CAN NOT be compelled to testify against yourself.

It is one of the most fundamental principles of our society.

I highly doubt it, in fact, if lie detectors were 100% accurate I think you'd see even STRONGER support for the 5th amendment. It exists for that very reason, so that you CAN NOT be compelled to testify against yourself.

Can you explain your reasoning? If lie detectors were one hundred percent accurate to clear one's self of a crime all one would have to do would be to tell the truth. So basically the police would not have to do nearly as much research in most cases to find the guilty and ignore the innocent in any particular case.

It is one of the most fundamental principles of our society.

How is it one of the most fundamental principles of our society?

If we would have lie detectors that work at 100% accuracy, it should be law that all politicians should be connected instantly. A red light on their head would indicate the lie.

If we would have lie detectors that work at 100% accuracy, it should be law that all politicians should be connected instantly. A red light on their head would indicate the lie.

If they were small enough they would likely change society as a whole because all one would have to do to find the truth from loved ones, business associates, ]as you point out] politicians, ect would be to hook them up.

Can you explain your reasoning? If lie detectors were one hundred percent accurate to clear one's self of a crime all one would have to do would be to tell the truth. So basically the police would not have to do nearly as much research in most cases to find the guilty and ignore the innocent in any particular case.

You can pretty much do that now. You can take a lie detector if you wish, and, if you pass, can largely be cleared.

Lie detectors aren't the most accurate, but you're far more likely to give a false positive than a false negative. Meaning it's much more likely that a person who is telling the truth will register a "lie" than a person who is lying will show as telling the truth.

So if you do "pass" then you're fairly well taken off. No need to make it mandatory.

How is it one of the most fundamental principles of our society?

Because, our society, our very framework, is based on the rule of law. Who we are as a people is mirrored in how we, as a society, shape and use the law. The right against self incrimination has its roots 800 years ago in the Magna Carta. It is one of our most fundamental rights as citizens and as humans, the right to not be compelled to aid in our own prosecution. It cuts to the very base of who we are as a people, and what we stand for, that my rights as a citizen remain firm regardless of the severity of my accused crimes, I can not be compelled to speak out against myself.

actually incorrect. Polygraphs are NOT used in the US, or, rather, their results are NOT admissible evidence. That's because polygraph tests have not been shown to be sufficiently scientifically reliable, and as such, their introduction would violate the rules of evidence (can't bring in evidence that is not scientifically obtained, same as you can't bring in someone's horoscope or tarot card reading).

You CAN take a polygraph test, and sometimes, especially if you're innocent, it may be wise to do so, since if you pass, the police and prosecutors don't look at you as intently, and thus it's useful for getting yourself ruled out as a suspect and keeping off prosecutor's radar, but even if you fail the fact that you failed CAN NOT be brought up in trial.

Polygraph tests ARE NOT admissible evidence simply because they are unreliable. If they WERE reliable, they'd probably STILL not be admissible in court (unless taken voluntarily) because it'd probably be a 5th amendment violation to require someone to take one, for the reasons I said.

Thanks for the correction - it did seem rather silly that something so unreliable should be admissable.

fMRI's are showing more promise than traditional polygraph tests (http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-3/Whos-the-liar-3F-Brain-MRI-stands-up-to-polygraph-test-6494-1/), unless polygraphs are paired with infared thermal imaging.

I don't think that traditional polygraph tests should be admissible evidence in court, as they are scientifically unreliable.

Given the whole debate about truth serums, legality and trials going on in the other thread, I've been wondering about this particular aspect of trials. Assuming there is a lie detector with very high probabilities (95%) of detecting lies from truth, would you be fine with them being used regularly in courts to determine the fact from fabrication? After all, you're supposed to swear to tell the truth and nothing but in most courts after all, and witness testimonies have been known to be wrong some times, so why not an extra precautionary step?

So what does NSG think? Yes? No? Why?
But that would be absurd to assume, given the nature of lie detectors; IIRC from 2nd-semester psychology, they simply measure people's physical symptoms associated with lies, (such as heart rate, sweating, blood pressure, etc..) and compare the changes for the "control questions" (which are presumed to be questions they'd be less inclined to lie about) to the changes for the "relevant questions" and base whether to conclude they're lying or not on the difference. These symptoms are amiguous, though, since they can be related to people's stress instead; and I'm guessing that with the stress of being hooked up to a lie detector in court could interfere with that. (EDIT: Not to mention how those who could control those physical symptoms would get away with it more easily than those who couldn't.)

Perhaps your scenario was meant to be hypothetical, but to me I think that's part of the point; unless the debate is entirely about the use of lie detectors in hypothetical-land and not meant to be applied to the real world, you're removing a key factor. I suppose you could say the debate was about "other problems with the use of lie detectors in court" but I think those other problems would tend to be somewhat related to the unreliability problem anyway...

And before Neo jumps at me that I'm not qualified.
a) Italy, Czech Republic... Other system here, and no 5th.

No. But there is a 6th.

Article 6 of the ECHR:

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
* (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
* (b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence;
* (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
* (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
* (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

What's this, you say? No specific mention of any right to avoid self-incrimination? Well, I'm glad you brought that up, because I would refer you to the case of John Murray v. the United Kingdom (1996):

45. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6
(art. 6) of the Convention, there can be no doubt that the right
to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege
against self-incrimination are generally recognised international
standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair
procedure under Article 6 (art. 6) (see the Funke judgment cited
above, loc. cit.).

...and, of course, the judgement of Funke v. France (1993)
41. In the applicant’s submission, his conviction for refusing to disclose the documents asked for by the customs (see paragraphs 9-14 above) had infringed his right to a fair trial as secured in Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1). He claimed that the authorities had violated the right not to give evidence against oneself, a general principle enshrined both in the legal orders of the Contracting States and in the European Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as although they had not lodged a complaint alleging an offence against the regulations governing financial dealings with foreign countries, they had brought criminal proceedings calculated to compel Mr Funke to co-operate in a prosecution mounted against him.
44. The Court notes that the customs secured Mr Funke’s conviction in order to obtain certain documents which they believed must exist, although they were not certain of the fact. Being unable or unwilling to procure them by some other means, they attempted to compel the applicant himself to provide the evidence of offences he had allegedly committed. The special features of customs law (see paragraphs 30-31 above) cannot justify such an infringement of the right of anyone "charged with a criminal offence", within the autonomous meaning of this expression in Article 6 (art. 6), to remain silent and not to contribute to incriminating himself.

There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).

See also the Saunders v. the United Kingdom judgment (1996), the Coeme and others v. Belgium judgement, etc. etc.


So... What's your point?

I think that yes, lie detectors should be allowed into court, at 95% accuracy. I know that this is, apparently, a clear violation of the 5th Amendment of the constitution and all that but it occurs to me that people being tried in court have, in many ocassions, violated the rights of others.

And? So what? How does this have a bearing on anything?

Technically, if there was some sort of "hot seat" that would 100% show if you were lying or omitting the truth in any way, the mere act of sitting in it would be a violation of the 5th Amendment, because you would be incriminating yourself.

How?

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=W6eINkIZMr4

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=N-TZ8Z5S9rI

But that would be absurd to assume, given the nature of lie detectors; IIRC from 2nd-semester psychology, they simply measure people's physical symptoms associated with lies, (such as heart rate, sweating, blood pressure, etc..) and compare the changes for the "control questions" (which are presumed to be questions they'd be less inclined to lie about) to the changes for the "relevant questions" and base whether to conclude they're lying or not on the difference. These symptoms are amiguous, though, since they can be related to people's stress instead; and I'm guessing that with the stress of being hooked up to a lie detector in court could interfere with that. (EDIT: Not to mention how those who could control those physical symptoms would get away with it more easily than those who couldn't.)

Perhaps your scenario was meant to be hypothetical, but to me I think that's part of the point; unless the debate is entirely about the use of lie detectors in hypothetical-land and not meant to be applied to the real world, you're removing a key factor. I suppose you could say the debate was about "other problems with the use of lie detectors in court" but I think those other problems would tend to be somewhat related to the unreliability problem anyway...

Partially hypothetical, since lie detectors exist, and that research on improving accuracy is ongoing. fMRIs have been mentioned as one aspect of research into it that is more accurate than polygraphs.

I take it you've undergone an actual test with a skilled operator?



Not all lie detectors operate on the basis of stress in the subject.

Name one that doesn't

A lie detector will never be accurate because of the sheer fact that every single person is different, and no matter what, will not act the same way when lying.

Hence it wouldn't be admissible in court.

Name one that doesn't

It's been mentioned twice in this thread already. fMRI. Yes, there are all sorts of problems with it right now, yes it's still an early development, but since it tracks brain portion usage in real time, it doesn't need have to test body stress at all. Lying and fact recollection use different portions of the brain.

No. But there is a 6th.

Article 6 of the ECHR:


What's this, you say? No specific mention of any right to avoid self-incrimination? Well, I'm glad you brought that up, because I would refer you to the case of John Murray v. the United Kingdom (1996):



...and, of course, the judgement of Funke v. France (1993)



See also the Saunders v. the United Kingdom judgment (1996), the Coeme and others v. Belgium judgement, etc. etc.


So... What's your point?

Quick reply, I'll try to be back later for a more comprehensive answer.

Article 6 doesn't specifically mention the right to not incriminate oneself and this make its application more flexible than the 5th emendament.
Italian law takes this right in account taking the defendant's statement, not his sworn witness.

AFAIK Funke was mainly due the customs investigators trying to extort information from the defendant by applying legal pressure.
Where customs authorities use their 'police power' of search and seizure to engage in a fishing expedition to obtain documents which they suspect but do not know to exist and which if found might provide evidence for a prosecution, and not finding any use daily penalties and fines to force surrender of such documents, they are infringing the right, protected by Article 6(1) ECHR, of anyone 'charged with a criminal offence' (within the autonomous meaning of that phrase in Article 6 ECHR) to remain silent and not to incriminate himself.
Funke v France (Case A/256-A) European Court of Human Rights (http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/privacy/funke_france.html)

Coeme appealed to the ECHR because of:
The applicants relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Mr Delanghe also alleged a violation of Article 6 § 3 (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence).
CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CLAES AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM (http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2005/June/ChamberjudgmentClaes&OthersvBelgium020605.htm)
So I don't see how that pertains to the matter at hand.

"lie detectors" gsr strip chart recorders as metrics of honesty, are well known for their abismal reliability rate. the're really just another way, like saliva on the tounge with a hot knive, of judging bodily reactions that indicate degree of nervousness/emotional reaction, which MIGHT be an indicatior of truthfulness. just as 'truth drugs' only break down resistence to revealing what a subject themselves believes/thinks they know/fantacizes/or otherwise might happen to have on their mind.

all of these biometric cues, in the end, ultimately depend upon fallable human judgement to interpret. the air of mystical near infallability about them is the problem, it simply has little to do with reality.

If they were small enough they would likely change society as a whole because all one would have to do to find the truth from loved ones, business associates, ]as you point out] politicians, ect would be to hook them up.

I don't want this for all people, only for politicians.

* Woman sees her man and asks:

"What do you think of my new dress?"

* Man sees an ugly dress and is not interested to talk about, the football is starting soon.

"Lovely dear, I like it a lot"

That's how it's currently working and I like this.

Why do people keep whining about the accuracy of lie detectors. Everyone knows they're not accurate, we're obviously talking about a complete hypothetical lie detector.

Why do people keep whining about the accuracy of lie detectors. Everyone knows they're not accurate, we're obviously talking about a complete hypothetical lie detector.
the trouble with hypothetical infallability is too many want to believe it, to grasp onto anything even close to looking like it might be, becoming emotionally attatched to pretending that it is, and their ego not letting them admit to themselves that it isn't.

infallability is one of those things, that to the best of my knowledge, has only been observed, if even there, in inert substances.

and again, if even there, in a VERY small percentage of physical principals.

the trouble with hypothetical infallability is too many want to believe it, to grasp onto anything even close to looking like it might be, becoming emotionally attatched to pretending that it is, and their ego not letting them admit to themselves that it isn't.

infallability is one of those things, that to the best of my knowledge, has only been observed, if even there, in inert substances.

and again, if even there, in a VERY small percentage of physical principals.

Did you read the links to the fMRI method of lie detection?

And? So what? How does this have a bearing on anything?

There seems to be this idea that if one is accused of violating the rights of others, one loses all one's rights. Ridiculous, I know.

Lie detectors in court?

Hehe, and what will they do if they are used on the lawyers?

Lie detectors in court?

Hehe, and what will they do if they are used on the lawyers?

Why would that happen? :confused:

Why would that happen? :confused:

There are liars, big liars and lawyers.

Or do you know honest lawyers?

There are liars, big liars and lawyers.

Or do you know honest lawyers?

o.O

Never understood this silly cultural disdain for the legal profession. Lawyers have a job, a very necessary job, and they do it. I know as many honest lawyers as I do honest logicians.

I am confused over an issue here. Isn't the point of courts to determine whether someone is guilty or innocent? We need courts and lawyers now because there is no way of telling if someone is being honest or lying when simply asked "Did you do it?". However, if we were to have a theoretical infallible lie detector, what would be the downside of using it? The fifth amendment was built on the assumption that the court system would still be in place, so I fail to see how it would be relevant in a system with access to a 100% accurate lie detector.

So I don't see how that pertains to the matter at hand.
i.e. you didn't bother to actually read my post, taking particular care to skip the bolded parts in the quotations.

Good to know.

I don't want this for all people, only for politicians.

* Woman sees her man and asks:

"What do you think of my new dress?"

* Man sees an ugly dress and is not interested to talk about, the football is starting soon.

"Lovely dear, I like it a lot"

That's how it's currently working and I like this.

What you desire and what would happen are two different things. In any case it may become basic courtesy to keep the lie detectors out of casual conversation and only use them for important stuff.

"Are you going to leave your wife?"

"Yes. I love you and always will."

"That's not what [insert generic lie detector brand] says. No sex for you."

"Dam you [generic lie detector]!"

There are liars, big liars and lawyers.

Or do you know honest lawyers?

Yes yes, we're all aware of the stereotype of lawyers being dishonest. But you seem to have a misconception about trials. It's generally the lawyers that ask the questions, not the other way around.

Lie detectors don't work. It's just that simple.

You can pretty much do that now. You can take a lie detector if you wish, and, if you pass, can largely be cleared.

Lie detectors aren't the most accurate, but you're far more likely to give a false positive than a false negative. Meaning it's much more likely that a person who is telling the truth will register a "lie" than a person who is lying will show as telling the truth.

So if you do "pass" then you're fairly well taken off. No need to make it mandatory.

We were talking about hypothetical lie detectors that were 100% accurate. Current lie detectors are far from that. So with this degree of accuracy false positives and false negatives are impossible.

Because, our society, our very framework, is based on the rule of law. Who we are as a people is mirrored in how we, as a society, shape and use the law. The right against self incrimination has its roots 800 years ago in the Magna Carta. It is one of our most fundamental rights as citizens and as humans, the right to not be compelled to aid in our own prosecution. It cuts to the very base of who we are as a people, and what we stand for, that my rights as a citizen remain firm regardless of the severity of my accused crimes, I can not be compelled to speak out against myself.

All one would be compelled to do would be to tell the truth regarding an crime. For 800 years the the technology to instantly prove that someone is guilty or to absolve the innocent did not exist. This is why it doesn't matter whether or not the 5th amendment is changed because invoking the right, when the means proving one's innocence are so easy. As for the rule of law nothing in the concept necessitates which specific laws are enacted as long as "governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps." I find it inconsistent that one can be compelled let one's property be searched and seized but one can not be compelled to testify. The only reason I see is that there is no mechanism that can accurately gauge the truth of one's testimony.

Snip...
See also the Saunders v. the United Kingdom judgment (1996), the Coeme and others v. Belgium judgement, etc. etc.
Snip...

There aren't bolded quotations below this statement.
So I ask again:
How is Coeme and others v. Belgium pertinent to the matter at hand?

Edit: I see... I was looking at the Agusta scandal, not the INUSOP one... Sorry, wrong case. *kicks the ECHR search engine. Would have been helpful if you provided a link to the actual cases ;)

There aren't bolded quotations below this statement.
So I ask again:
How is Coeme and others v. Belgium pertinent to the matter at hand?
It supports what the court said in the quotations I had added above.

126. The Court reiterates that the right not to give evidence against oneself, that is the right to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself, lies at the heart of the notion of fair trial
Link (http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Coeme%20|%20others%20|%20v.%20|%20Belgium&sessionid=16860127&skin=hudoc-en)

Edit: I see... I was looking at the Agusta scandal, not the INUSOP one... Sorry, wrong case. *kicks the ECHR search engine. Would have been helpful if you provided a link to the actual cases ;)
I gave all the information that you would need to find the case in HUDOC. ;)

Besides, I posted the pertinent details. The Coeme-judgement was just icing on the cake.

It supports what the court said in the quotations I had added above.

Link (http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Coeme%20|%20others%20|%20v.%20|%20Belgium&sessionid=16860127&skin=hudoc-en)

I gave all the information that you would need to find the case in HUDOC. ;)

Besides, I posted the pertinent details. The Coeme-judgement was just icing on the cake.

I plead guilty.
Not having much time I went trough the Press release catalogue and searched fulltext.
The first result was Claes and others v. Belgium. Since one of the main defendants was Coeme i just assumed...

You could actually have seen my mistake if you had bothered to read my post ;)

After all, you're supposed to swear to tell the truth and nothing but in most courts after all, and witness testimonies have been known to be wrong some times, so why not an extra precautionary step?


The point is: there is NO device with 100% accuracy, and there cannot be.
Also, the use 100% lie detector would lead to relying mostly on confessions and witnesses, thus discounting material proof, which is far more solid. Just as an example, a witness could be wrong, and honestly believe that he's telling the truth. The lie detector would signal it as "true", and a jury might take this as absolute certainity.

The point is: there is NO device with 100% accuracy, and there cannot be.


A lot of people in the past, some quite brilliant, have been known to make statements regarding the impossibility of developments and future trends, only to have them completely turned on their head by reality.


Also, the use 100% lie detector would lead to relying mostly on confessions and witnesses, thus discounting material proof, which is far more solid.


Would it necessarily so? It would be a very lazy, and incompetent, lawyer who would rely solely on a 100% accuracy lie detector to make his case.

Don't they fall apart with a pathological liar?

no, I think it'd be a violation of the 5th amendment.

Not quite, the 5'th Ammendment protects you from self-incrimination (Hence the over-used "I plead the fifth"), it does not allow to you to lie to cover up a crime. You can avoid answering, something you could do under a liee-detector as well, but you are not allowed to lie on the stand even now (It's called "perjury"); if a lie detector is used you can still avoid incriminating yourself, but now we can catch you if you commit another crime in your attempt to avoid the last one.

Not quite, the 5'th Ammendment protects you from self-incrimination (Hence the over-used "I plead the fifth"), it does not allow to you to lie to cover up a crime. You can avoid answering, something you could do under a liee-detector as well, but you are not allowed to lie on the stand even now (It's called "perjury"); if a lie detector is used you can still avoid incriminating yourself, but now we can catch you if you commit another crime in your attempt to avoid the last one.

how about you read what I actually said on the subject, before presuming that a lawyer doesn't know what the 5th amendment says?

I plead guilty.
Not having much time I went trough the Press release catalogue and searched fulltext.
The first result was Claes and others v. Belgium. Since one of the main defendants was Coeme i just assumed...

You could actually have seen my mistake if you had bothered to read my post ;)

Oh I read your post and I saw your mistake. But I figured I should strengthen my post even more when I had the chance.

Regardless, as you can see, it's not important that you cannot directly "plead the fifth" in Europe, because you have the same protection that you would get under the fifth amendment through article 6.