The Instigator
IceHawk2009
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
colelevine
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Should Le detectors be allowed as evidence in the court of law?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
IceHawk2009
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 518 times Debate No: 46030
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

IceHawk2009

Con

I saw some one else start this debate and I thought it was interesting. 1st round will be acceptance.
colelevine

Pro

A court of law should be able to use whatever it can, and whatever it has to to find substantial evidence to frame somebody.
Debate Round No. 1
IceHawk2009

Con

Thank you for accepting my debate. Please excuse the typo in the title of the debate.

Presentation

The problems with lie detectors are they are not fool proof. They measure different biological responses to stress[1]. These biological responses are pulse, respirations, blood pressure, and perspiration. The premise behind the lie detectors or polygraph is that the person answering the questions would experience an increase in stress when the examiner would say a specific phrase or if the person answering the questions answers with a lie[2]. This all sounds well in good unless you take a moment to think about the stress the suspect is already experiencing. As this article puts it stress is a result of trauma and trauma is defined as “[A] abrupt physical disruption in an individual’s ordinary daily experience that often causes a loss of control over the body, and may be perceived as objectification of the body.[3]” More often than not the most common suspect in a murder is members of the victim’s family or friends[4]. Let’s look at the stress these people are under. The person who has just had a loved one murdered is picked up on the street and dragged down the police station, they are read their rights, and now someone is asking about their involvement in there murder. This could stress any one out to the point that it looks like they fail the test.

The second problem is there is no research behind the accuracy of lie detectors[5]. One of the main reasons that it would be hard to conduct a study on how accurate a polygraphs are is that there is no way to recreate the stress that a suspect in a crime would feel under questioning. A second reason that it is difficult to research polygraphs is the placebo effect[6]. What I mean is that if a person who believes the test works may automatically confess or just be more anxious when being questioned.

To conclude the reason why courts should not allow the use of polygraphs in trial is there are questions to the validity of the test as well as a lack of evidence to support the accuracy of the polygraphs ability to detect when a person lies.

colelevine

Pro

Truly I think we both indubitably know that lie detectors aren't accurate as we would like them to be. And an individual's stress can play a negative factor for him, but it is just another way to find evidence. Truly a lie detector should not be depended on, but it should be another way to help put everything together. But it should not be extinguished, because of the fact that it has aided in finding thousands of guilty criminals.
Debate Round No. 2
IceHawk2009

Con


If they are not accurate then they should not be used. Why should they be used for evidence that could send someone to jail for the rest of their lives? I didn’t say to get rid of it I said not to use it in court. When has it found guilty criminals?


colelevine

Pro

As I said before the lie detector should only be used to put together the pieces of the puzzle.
Debate Round No. 3
IceHawk2009

Con

Then why did you accept this debate? I am arguing about it not being used in court....
colelevine

Pro

It should be used in court. Whatever we can use to find evidence should be used.
Debate Round No. 4
IceHawk2009

Con

IceHawk2009 forfeited this round.
colelevine

Pro

colelevine forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by IceHawk2009 3 years ago
IceHawk2009
It was a typo....
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
Le detectors? What is this, a rage comic?
Posted by TheShadowCupcake 3 years ago
TheShadowCupcake
While lie detectors typically refer to polygraphs, they can also refer to people who are experts in detecting lies. Something to consider in your premise.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
IceHawk2009colelevineTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments remained abstract possibilities, as evidenced by his failing to cite examples where lie detectors were beneficial. Con highlighted the great potential for lie detectors to be inaccurate, hence they should not be used. Since Con showed lie detectors aren't necessarily accurate at all, and Pro failed to provide any arguments to oppose, I think Con's arguments were stronger. Conduct to Pro because Con forfeited first. Sources to Con, since Con was the only one to use sources. Not only that, but they were strong sources too, and substantially helped build an imposing argument.