The Instigator
GrannoHD
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Speakerfrthedead
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Nonverbal clues as evidence in a case

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 682 times Debate No: 46413
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

GrannoHD

Pro

Do you think it should be possible to use nonverbal behavior as evidence in a case to convict a person guilty or innocent?

Have you seen the tv-show lie to me?
its kinda like that I'm talking about.
If a person shows a lot of nonverbal clues which, if you put them all together would fit a guilty person, could that be used as evidence?

Many investigators who use the polygraph also look at nonverbal signs, if you combine them it can turn out to be a really power full tool to detect who is guilty and who is innocent.

Would really appreciate all opinions because this is for a school assignment.
Speakerfrthedead

Con

In my opinion I don't think you can use nonverbal behaviour as evidence to prove someone as guilty. If by showing signs of anxiety or lying results as evidence for commiting the crime then what about people who are just intimidated when people ask them questions directly. By being confronted they could be anxious but still innocent.

Maybe the suspect is lying because of personal fears like the real criminal coming after him and taking revenge if he told the jury the truth.

Polygraphs are great for telling if a person is lying but that does not conclude the person as the criminal. Concrete and solid evidence is what really determines whether a person is guilty or not.

On to pro.
Debate Round No. 1
GrannoHD

Pro

Nonverbal behavioural clues is much more accurate in telling which emotion is aroused, the polygraph only tell you that there is an emotion arousing, not which one.

I believe if the investigators can't find some evidence, not enough to convict a person, there should be looked at nonverbal clues, its much more accurate than people think.

In a few years when people have been studying nonverbal communication for quite some time, i actually think it will become a powerful tool that will be used in most countries.
Speakerfrthedead

Con

I believe if the investigators can't find some evidence, not enough to convict a person, there should be looked at nonverbal clues, its much more accurate than people think.

Any sources?


Debate Round No. 2
GrannoHD

Pro

Paul Ekman's Telling lies book.
centerforbodylanguage.com
humintell.com
and so on, but cant remember the rest
Speakerfrthedead

Con

I agree that it is a great tool and you can gain lots of information about a person from nonverbal clues but it won't be enough to convict a person as guilty because there needs to be more evidence in order to be sure.

If you can give an example of a nonverbal clue that is convincing enough to be used as evidence then I guess what you say is true. However I doubt that nonverbal clues are enough to convict a person as guilty of a crime.
Debate Round No. 3
GrannoHD

Pro

Not one clue of nonverbal sign but a few.

if the suspect keep lying and showing guilt when asked about thec crime and he kept showing them.
but ofc i wouldn't say it was enough to convict a person for death sentence or a lot of years in prison, but maybe for a couple of month.
Speakerfrthedead

Con

But what if the person that was sent to prison for a few months turns out not to be a criminal, this could lead to being sued for keeping an innocent person in jail.

Anyways, how's that school assignment coming along?
Debate Round No. 4
GrannoHD

Pro

Wow i haven't thought about that.
but maybe in a couple of years if it would be a legit reason to convict a person based on nonverbal clues, they could make a law that prevented people from suing the person who convicted the suspect.
Like say u are allowed to give a person one month in prison based on nonverbal clues, but not a day more.

Very good we have a presentation on friday, i think it's will turn out great.
Speakerfrthedead

Con

I don't think it will be likely because the suspects in court almost always have lawyers that protect them from accusations based on nonverbal clues that do not gurantee a suspect as guilty. And if it does become a reliable evidence tool, people will be very upset and scared to be involved in any crime scene because there might be a chance they will be put in jail for up to a month. It could lead to people violently protesting against the idea. People will be happier if they know that they are safe from being sent to jail unless they really have done a crime and there is empirical evidence.

Good to know that, I hope you do well in your presentation.

Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by GrannoHD 3 years ago
GrannoHD
Okay
Posted by Speakerfrthedead 3 years ago
Speakerfrthedead
he means that he wants to join the debate but he agrees with you say so he cannot choose to be Con
Posted by GrannoHD 3 years ago
GrannoHD
@galal
can do please rephrase your comment? i don't understand the last part.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
No we shouldn't... People have the right to plead the fifth,

Though it can be annoying at times...

Really, you're taking away their right to be silent now if you do this.

There is obviously going to be enough reasonable doubt that person is innocent if the only evidence against them is that they do not talk.
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 3 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
Of course, and it IS.
Standing over a dead body with the murder weapon in hand is NOT verbal behaviour, and is admissible in court. Could you plase specify your assignment so that I can give you actually helpful info on this?
Posted by Galal 3 years ago
Galal
I do agree with you, I would like to join the debate but if were to accept this debate that would put in the position of Con. Which I do not agree with.
No votes have been placed for this debate.