[B]Police have begun using lie detector tests on suspected sex offenders in a trial which could be widened.[/B]
Hertfordshire Police confirmed it had been using polygraphs, which monitor heart rate, brain activity, sweating and blood pressure, during questioning.
The pilot scheme was being used to [B]help decide whether to charge suspects[/B], according to The Times.
But the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said the tests were at a very early stage.
The Times reported that [B]Hertfordshire Police tested 25 "low-level" sex offenders, with some making disclosures they might otherwise have been unlikely to and others apparently lying - prompting officers to conduct further investigations.[/B]
Acpo said its Homicide Working Group advised police on the use of polygraph techniques and would follow the trial in Hertfordshire with interest.
A spokeswoman said: "[B]Polygraph techniques are complex and are by no means a single solution to solving crimes, potentially offering in certain circumstances an additional tool to structured interrogation.[/B]
"Whether these techniques are adopted elsewhere in the country is a matter for individual chief constables."
Bruce Burgess, a former chairman of the British Polygraph Association, said that[B] in the US lie detectors were considered to be a useful "investigative tool"[/B], even though they produced evidence that was [B]"very difficult to get into court" and were unlikely ever to be used as "a guilty or innocent tool"[/B].
He added: "[B]If they polygraph six people and they get five truthful results and one deceptive, they can home in on that person and cut down on a lot of police work. That's the way it's used in America.[/B]"
Although routine in police investigations in the US, the results of lie detector tests are considered [B]too unreliable for use in criminal trials in the UK[/B].
The Ministry of Justice has been overseeing the project, aimed at testing sex offenders as part of their probation conditions when they are freed from prison.
[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16371043[/URL]
Aren't polygraph tests incredibly easy to fool?
[QUOTE=Noth;33978880]Aren't polygraph tests incredibly easy to fool?[/QUOTE]
Diazepam.
[QUOTE=Noth;33978880]Aren't polygraph tests incredibly easy to fool?[/QUOTE]
One of my friends has a granddaughter who was molested, the guy even stalked them after it was found out, really breaks my heart to see her because she's afraid of everyone because of this shithead. Only reason he's not in jail is because he beat the polygraph. To be more specific, the girl told her parents what happened and they called the police who arrested the guy, and he was let go after getting past the polygraph. Then he started coming around their house every day asking to be let in, and when the police are called they basically tell them "We can't arrest him because he's not doing anything bad, but we'll tell him to stay off your property."
I mean, how many people have you met who are genuinely afraid of people that are not immediate family?
[QUOTE=Noth;33978880]Aren't polygraph tests incredibly easy to fool?[/QUOTE]
Not incredibly easy, but certainly possible. Afaik it requires some training. You have to basically have machine calibrated so your response when telling the truth is the same as the response when lying.
One of the things they test is skin capacitance (i.e. how sweaty you are). If you can make yourself appear nervous (i.e. lying) to the machine while they're finding a "base" level off which to measure your response, even when you're lying and a nervous response occurs, it won't be picked up as anything above "normal".
Yeah, the Polygraph has been inadmissible as evidence for a while here in the states.
Sounds incredibly dangerous. Not only could actual criminals fool the thing but innocents could also be considered guilty. If someone (even though completely innocent) is incredibly nervous because he's not used to being arrested, he can be considered guilty by the whole thing.
Polygraph machines have a really shit level of accuracy, think some study found it to be around 60% which is only marginally better than randomly guessing
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;33979469]Yeah, the Polygraph has been inadmissible as evidence for a while here in the states.[/QUOTE]
There are certain cases in which they are admissible, though. I don't remember which.
[QUOTE=Sanius;33981915]There are certain cases in which they are admissible, though. I don't remember which.[/QUOTE]
Some states allow polygraph evidence at the discretion of the judge, I think it's like 20 or so but I could be wrong, and even then it cannot be forced on the defendant. And if you're applying for a job with the government you have to take one to my knowledge. But in most cases judges don't allow it for determination of guilt anyway.
[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;33979035]One of my friends has a granddaughter who was molested, the guy even stalked them after it was found out, really breaks my heart to see her because she's afraid of everyone because of this shithead. Only reason he's not in jail is because he beat the polygraph. To be more specific, the girl told her parents what happened and they called the police who arrested the guy, and he was let go after getting past the polygraph. Then he started coming around their house every day asking to be let in, and when the police are called they basically tell them "We can't arrest him because he's not doing anything bad, but we'll tell him to stay off your property."
I mean, how many people have you met who are genuinely afraid of people that are not immediate family?[/QUOTE]
Geez man.
I was gonna mention how polygraph tests are shit, I mean turn on KTLA5 anywhere from 10 to 12 and you have that douche nozzle Maury Povich telling people they're liars and can deduce numbers of times something happened from a polygraph.
Polygraphs don't even work on psychopaths anyway what the fuck
[QUOTE=Noth;33978880]Aren't polygraph tests incredibly easy to fool?[/QUOTE]
Yes. Thats why in the US you cannot use one as evidence against someone in court.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;33979469]Yeah, the Polygraph has been inadmissible as evidence for a while here in the states.[/QUOTE]
Sorry. Rated winner when trying to get browser focus back.
And, I didn't know that.
Polygraphs aren't admissible evidence in court I thought, more for finding out who cheated who on Springer then for killers.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;33983245]Polygraphs don't even work on psychopaths anyway what the fuck[/QUOTE]
Or compulsive liars. Or people who don't allow for a proper baseline.
[QUOTE=Noth;33978880]Aren't polygraph tests incredibly easy to fool?[/QUOTE]
Lie detectors don't measure whether you're lying or not, they measure conditions associated with nervousness.
I don't know abut you, but if was being interrogated by the cops I'd be pretty fucking nervous.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;33983245]Polygraphs don't even work on psychopaths anyway what the fuck[/QUOTE]
That's because polygraphs only detect when you are nervous or anxious, if you felt you did nothing wrong than of course it won't be picked up. Psychopaths and Sociopaths don't really feel that they ever do anything wrong so it's ineffective against them. They also tend to commit a lot more crimes as well due to their inability to feel guilt correctly.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;33983245]Polygraphs don't even work on psychopaths anyway what the fuck[/QUOTE]
do you have any evidence for this
[QUOTE=Downsider;34008434]do you have any evidence for this[/QUOTE]
If you don't have an emotional reaction to a story you're telling, or answers your giving, you won't give off anything to the polygraph that looks like a lie.
If you're smooth enough and cold enough, yes, you can slip by them. It's not like they're a good form of evidence anyways.
There IS an answer to this problem.
[img]http://blog.wishray.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/tim-roth-as-dr-cal-lightman-in-lie-to-me.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;34008495]If you don't have an emotional reaction to a story you're telling, or answers your giving, you won't give off anything to the polygraph that looks like a lie.
If you're smooth enough and cold enough, yes, you can slip by them. It's not like they're a good form of evidence anyways.[/QUOTE]
do you have any evidence for this
[QUOTE=Baldr 2.0;33978911]Nothing more than flexing your anus muscles is needed, thank god its not counted as real evidence here.[/QUOTE]
as much as I want to google that, can anyone post a source?
[quote]cut down on a lot of police work.[/quote]
No, that's not a good fucking thing
Do your jobs and see what [B]evidence[/B] is found, not the incredibly hokey bullshit of polygraph testing.
[editline]3rd January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;33991928]Lie detectors don't measure whether you're lying or not, they measure conditions associated with nervousness.
I don't know abut you, but if was being interrogated by the cops I'd be pretty fucking nervous.[/QUOTE]
which is exactly why [B]they are shit[/B]
[editline]3rd January 2012[/editline]
another way to fool them is drink so much coffee that you're basically a jittering mess anyway, so the baseline is 'fucking wired'
It seems like what's happened here is that some high-ranking guy watched an episode of Jeremy Kyle (basically the UK version of Jerry Springer) in which they use the lie-detector and thought it was fucking genius.
The polygraph isn't to be used as a piece of evidence in trial.
If, for example, the come across a dude with CP on his PC, they'd administer the polygraph to determine whether or not he's an immediate threat to children, and take action due to that.
No one has suggested using it as a serious decider in court.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;34044448]The polygraph isn't to be used as a piece of evidence in trial.
If, for example, the come across a dude with CP on his PC, they'd administer the polygraph to determine whether or not he's an immediate threat to children, and take action due to that.
No one has suggested using it as a serious decider in court.[/QUOTE]
And what happens if he is a stone-cold bastard?
He performs well on the test, you okay him and them some more kids get molested.
It's a bad crutch for, as was mentioned, doing police work
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
