Question: Why can't they submit someone who "allegedly commited murder or self-defence" to prove whether it was pre-meditated or not?
I know people who commit se.x crimes are submitted to do them. How I know this, I won't answer. I just know.
Why doesn't it work with cases like these?
Like with Casey Anthony? Everyone believes she killed her daughter and yet she was aquitted.
Wouldn't it be easier to make these people do lie-detector tests? I know it's a stupid question. But it boggles my mind.
By the way, thank you, all of you, for answering my questions. I'm learning so much more. Even if I still think otherwise. Opinions will always remain so.
^No prob, Dawg. It's always nice to see an issue from every side.
And err . . . lie detector tests don't really prove beyond a reasonable doubt, unless there's been some major improvement I don't know about. Maybe one could be used as evidence? But I wouldn't think you could make someone take one: you know, Fifth Amendment rights and all.
"Everyone believes she killed her daughter and yet she was aquitted. "
Because they couldn't prove it and I'd much prefer the system we have than one where any one can get carted off to jail based just on suspicions (or even nothing at all).
I'm not talking about assumptions and suspiscions. I knot people who commit se.x crimes are made to do lie detecting tests. Also the 5th Amendment thing, does that mean although someone might have (again might have) killed someone we can't make them take a lie detecting test. Playing devil's advocate here right now, let's say they did. We'll never know the real truth, because someone thinks it's their right not to tell the truth or whatever. How about the other person's rights?
I don't truly understand the justice system of this country. It all seems so twisted. Everything is pretty much based on presentation rather than honesty. That's the way I see it. Zimmerman is a free man (again my opinion, and devil's advocate) becuase his lawyers had a better presentation than the other lawyers. I dunno; seems twisted.
it was soooo wrong for Oboma to say what he said!
this has turned into a racist whole.
there could vary well be a civil war if people dont calm down.
and to show pictures of this guy ( the black guy whome i dont know the name, sorry )
when he was a child? please.
he was by most standards a man, and looked like a criminal,
bieng in government i hate the turnout on our presidents part, he really did not do wright!
Lie detectors are pretty terrible when it comes to accuracy. I can find some figures if you'd like more specifics.
"it was soooo wrong for Oboma to say what he said!
this has turned into a racist whole. "
I agree it didn't help. Although he wasn't solely responsible for turning it into a racist thing.
I would appreciate that. I don't believe in lie detectors either. But it's crossed my mind several times why alleged murderers don't take them.
I agree with you whole-heartedly. This should be a racial thing. I hate how they always say Trayvon Martin, 17 yr. old black teenager. Why do people have to mention his race like it's a big deal. I mean, I know he's black. But they mention it as if like OMG I didn't know that. If he were white, no one would say, Trayvon Martin, 17 yr old white teenager. This isn't about civil rights. It's a debate about whether or not he was killed in self-defence. People are taking it out of context. To be honest with you, this teenager has become like a martyr. That's my view with all these "civil movements". Let the boy rest in peace. I agree that the justice system of this country isn't 100% accurate or good with all of its decisions. But let's take the whole racism out of it. It's getting out of proportion.
"This isn't about civil rights. It's a debate about whether or not he was killed in self-defence"
No it isn't. I'm stay trying to figure out how this is such a big deal? What other word would you lose to describe a black teenager? African-American? No. As for no one saying white teenager, I've seen, and heard of it on the news way too much.
"justice system isn't 100% accurate or good with all of its decisions"
Correct, it isn't. However, the jury and judge made the right decision in the case presented to them. They had the evidence in front of them. All of it. We all know the stories of both sides. However, that isn't how it goes. We don't all vote online to pick who gets the punishment. It goes by the facts and evidence, which the prosecutors lacked tremendously. This case has nothing to do with how bad our judiciary system is. Yes I ended that sentence with a preposition, bite me.
end of rant, my apologies to Mckay for being the victim. :)
I'm not the victim here. And I'm not hurt by your ranting. I'm learning about all of this.
This is a debate about self-defence or plain muder. Regardless of the evidence presented, we don't and will never know if Zimmerman acted in self-defence or not. That's why I say debate. Everyone wants to know the truth. Will we know, most likely no. Like you said, the evidence presented was enough to aquit him of muder and whatnot. I agree. They acted as they should have.
What I'm saying is that this isn't about civil rights. I just don't like how they always need to mention his race as if it were a factor in this case. Which everyone else seems to think so. I know he's black. But why does it matter?
And even if enough evidence was presented to justify his action, it doesn't mean it's correct. (Or wrong.) I'm playing devil's advocate here. (So lighten up. —And yes, I too ended a sentence with a preposition. So who's gonna bite?) Truth is what would make the justice system 100% accurate. But I know that won't happen.
So end of my rant...apologies for being the devil's advocate and giving all of you H*ll. :P
Stealing my job of being Devil's advocate.......Not cool.
Still trying to find the sentence where you ended with a preposition.
As for the black part. Some people just now are learning about it. Or listening to it. The press and News uses the term black, to identify the person for the first-time viewers no matter how annoyed the rest of us are. I agree it shouldn't be a racial thing.
THANK YOU! Archy!
"So lighten up." That's where.
And yeah, I hadn't thought of that before.
Plus, I didn't steal. It was mine to begin with.
"This is a debate about self-defence or plain muder. "
Quantum, i guess what i was saying is oboma was wrong for saying that AND this has turned into a race thing, not that oboma was soley responsible
Thank you, Quantom, for agreeing with me!
I'm sourcing from Paul Ekman's book Telling Lies.
1000 people are tested, of which 200 are lying.
180 of those 200 are caught out as liars, and 20 are not.
This seems like the polygraph is doing pretty well until we look at the other end.
80 truthful people are also judged as liars. Almost half the amount of liars that were found.
1000 people are tested, 50 of which are liars.
45 of the 50 are found as liars, 5 are not.So it's pretty good for detecting the liars.
95 truthful people are also deemed liars in this case though. Twice the amount of liars found.
This is why polygraphs aren't considered reliable. A negative result might be deemed significant in a court based setting (as in both tests, only 10% could fool it), but a positive one much less so. Even 10% is enough to place doubt towards the negative result. It's not certain enough to be of use.
i thought so too.
I just wonder why they use them in some cases and not all. If it's not reliable for one kind(s) of case(s), then why use them for another?
Thanks, Jubliex for the information.
Glad to help :)
I can think of two reasons for using lie detectors despite knowing that they have limited accuracy.
1) A lot of people don't know the degree of accuracy. It looks showy to use a lie detector. Not only that, but the person being tested could be more inclined to confess if they knew that they failed the polygraph. They might see it as not really having much to lose, because they are unaware of the accuracy. This could be used very much to the investigator's advantage.
2) Negative results can still hold some weight, as the testing only shows a 10% inaccuracy in those cases. There are probably a lot of other tests that have been done on polygraphs that show different levels of accuracy.
There would be other reasons, but these are ones I can think of that make sense to me.
Just seems weird that they use it in some cases not all. I don't know if that makes sense.