Lie detectors

[myhome]

It's probably a naive question, but why don't the Police use a Lie Detector test in these cases? Anyone know? Surely that would give a definitive answer or they (the tests) unreliable?

[IvorBinWronged]

Or...

...Just take away the 11k compo and most of the liars will move back onto catalogue fraud and bogus whiplash claims.

[friday]

Polygraph tests (lie detectors) are not very reliable for a number of reasons. Some people can fool them, for example, and polygraphs only detect responses such as heart rate and sweating which can be caused by a number of different emotions (e.g. rather than your heart rate increasing because you are nervous because you are lying it may increase because you are angry you are being questioned).

[Stronger Together]

Hello Myhome,

Thanks for replying to my thread. Funnily enough I took a Polygraph (lie detector test) and got a score of 99.9% no lies detected. I was falsely accused so I can only say that they do work. The examiner said to me that is the highest score you can get as it's impossible to get 100%. I have a newspaper article I cut out from the Times where it says the Police were using them in some counties on Sex Offenders to see if they will re-commit. It was a pilot scheme but it was so successful that they wanted it to go country wide. I think this should also happen to those accused in historical cases when the Police are gathering evidence. I always say the horror of an historical allegation is how do you prove your innocence? If someone decides to make an allegation against you from 5,15,20,or even 40 years ago! When you think about it it's a joke " Did you know this person 30 years ago?" "yes officer" Guilty? In the newspaper article I have it says> Studies show that the Polygraph error rate in detecting wrong answers is about 10%. That compares with an error rate of 45% in the average person who tries to detect a lie!< I think you may have read my other thread where I mentioned my Subject Access Data. Like I said I did not get much back but it said on there I produced a polygraph test to support my statement so it was taken into account.

I know there will be people saying oh Jeremy Kyle and all that and you can easily cheat them. But taking a Polygraph test is no joke it is an intense examination that speaks volumes. Would a guilty person voluntarily take one? I spoke to the subject access officer over the phone when I was obtaining my data, about Polygraph tests and he told me until it becomes law there is not much they can do. All I would say to anyone is that if you are innocent take a polygraph test. The more Polygraph tests that pass and correspond with N.F.A the more the authorities will realise that they can be used both ways. The only major drawback is the money. Mine cost me £850.00 but at the time I was so angry about the horrible lies that had been said about me money did not come into it. But the fact remains that not everybody has £850.00 to spare. That's why like I said earlier it should be their right that if they are saying that they are innocent they should be allowed to take a Polygraph test at no cost to them. We are talking about someones life here (The F.A) someone who has been accused of a crime he/she did not commit and could go to prison for it.

Hope I've not gone on too much and this helps.
Kind Regards
Stronger Together.

[myhome]

I can only say that they do work.
I always say the horror of an historical allegation is how do you prove your innocence? If someone decides to make an allegation against you from 5,15,20,or even 40 years ago!
But taking a Polygraph test is no joke it is an intense examination that speaks volumes. Would a guilty person voluntarily take one?
I All I would say to anyone is that if you are innocent take a polygraph test.
That's why like I said earlier it should be their right that if they are saying that they are innocent they should be allowed to take a Polygraph test at no cost to them. We are talking about someones life here (The F.A) someone who has been accused of a crime he/she did not commit and could go to prison for it.

If I've read this right, are you saying that you can volunteer to take a polygraph test and that they have to let you do it?

and, no, you haven't "gone on too much" - I think that for all of us on here - every information and advice is helpful - thank you

Steph

[Stronger Together]

Hi Steph,

No sadly that is not the case I was saying that in historical cases it should be people’s right to take one and would a guilty person take one voluntarily? Like I said in my earlier post the police are using them so they do have faith in them. When the Police came for me I was fortunate enough not to be in which gave me the opportunity to take one before I was interviewed a couple of days later.
Hope this clears up any confusion, I will just add that people do easily dismiss them saying they are easy to cheat. They might need to take one first before saying that.

All the best and I hope you get to find peace in 2013.
Stronger Together.

[Stronger Together]

Hello Steph,

If you go on you tube you will find a news item that was on Sky News a couple of months ago about Polygraphs. I typed in Sky News lie detectors and I found it under newsnight sex offender lie detector tests a success. Have a look at it let me know what you think. As you can see from the clip they are using it, so I cannot see why people that are saying they have bee F.A cannot take one as well to help prove their innocence. The powers that be would mention the cost as a reason not to roll it out. But how much is wasted taking innocent people to court?

Kind Regards.

[Rights Fighter]

Evidence from lie detectors/polygraphs is not admissible in a court of law. It's a shame as I believe that if the accused wishes to take one then the result should be allowed in. If I had been the victim of an assault, sexual of otherwise I would certainly take such a test. Those who lie about such matters rarely would, unless they believe they can beat it.

[myhome]

Evidence from lie detectors/polygraphs is not admissible in a court of law.

But if someone who's been FA accused took one and "passed it" so to speak, could it be used to stop the case going any further at that point ie before it gets tot court?

[Rights Fighter]

If only. As it is not admissible at trial then it follows it would not be admissible as 'evidence' before charge.

I know too many guys who have told the police in their interviews that they want to take a lie detector. Obviously it's been refused but even when offering to do it at their own cost the answer is still 'we cannot accept it as evidence'.

[friday]

Getting victims or false accusers to do lie detectors wouldn't work in my opinion. If a real rape victim was asked questions about being raped, even just "were you raped by x?" they are likely to get emotional which would manifest as increased heart rate and sweating. This could then be seen as evidence of them lying.

[Stronger Together]

[Hello,
But that’s the problem we have people that are being F.A including me of things they are have supposed to have done years ago. It’s the whole reason why I took the Polygraph because I thought.
“I know I have not done it but how can I prove my innocence?” It’s just too easy when these historical allegations are being fabricated especially when they are offering a pot of gold at the end of it. You are right it is not admissible in court but we must be given the opportunity to take one when the police are gathering evidence especially in historical cases.

Regards
S.T

[Rights Fighter]

Friday, I think it depends on the person. And they do take into consideration the fact that the participant will be nervous. And I think they would expeect an innocent person to be a little nervous in any event. Somebody who undertakes it without any nerves at all would be suspect, in my view.

As I said, if I had been assaulted and the only way I could get justice would be to take such a test, I would do so.