I can't shake the feeling/belief that lie detectors are extremely effective (as in, far more than things we consider to be very impactful like eye-witness testimony).

I base this solely on two things I observe: first, if lie detectors were real and effective they would revolutionize justice and that would have a horrific effect on the billionaire class and for-profit criminal justice system. Second, despite them being all kinds of popular a few decades ago in popular media, etc., they are largely cast aside today and rarely mentioned.

Should you ever force someone to take one? Fuck no - you shouldn't make anyone testify in any capacity.

But should people be allowed to voluntarily take them if they work? Absolutely. Think how many people could be credibly acquitted with a 10 minute low cost test. "Where you in the city yesterday? No."

Obviously they're not 100% perfect. But are they better or equal than other forms of evidence (i.e., eye witness; photographic) that we allow as evidence today?

Or are they actually bullshit? I've not looked deeply into this issue so would love to have my belief affirmed or changed.

EDIT: Really appreciate the responses I definitely was not considering the other possibility: that they have been known to be bullshit for a long time yet still propped up by law enforcement for as long as they can.

  • GreatBearShark [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    they’re mostly bullshit. if you watch any video of someone taking a lie detector test you can usually see one or two cases where it gets things wrong because people will get nervous when they’re telling the truth about an uncomfortable question.

    it can also be easily “misread” in favor of convicting someone