The Instigator
IceHawk2009
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Imhellspawn2
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should lie detectors be used as evidence in a criminal trial.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 524 times Debate No: 48370
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

IceHawk2009

Con

I do not think they should. First round will be acceptance.
Imhellspawn2

Pro

I think they should be I ACCEPT
Debate Round No. 1
IceHawk2009

Con

Thank you for accepting my debate. I wish the best of luck to you. With out further to do allow me to begin.

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.

I look forward to reading my opponents arguments and rebuttal.

Source list
[1]"http://science.howstuffworks.com......
[2]"http://www.apa.org......
[3]"http://su.diva-portal.org......
[4]"http://www2.fbi.gov......
[5]"http://www.apa.org......
[6]"http://www.apa.org......
Imhellspawn2

Pro

No Problem Happy To debate a good Topic

If the Criminal is Suspected the Cops may do a polygraph or lie detector test

Read bottom paragraph
Lie detector tests on suspected criminals are being used for the first time by a British police force.
Hertfordshire Police confirmed it had been using polygraphs, which monitor heart rate, brain activity, sweating and blood pressure, during questioning.
The groundbreaking scheme is helping officers decide whether to charge suspects and the trial could lead the way to its introduction nationwide.
Tested: A polygraph volunteer is asked a series of questions which monitors heart rate, sweating and blood pressure

Tested: A polygraph volunteer is asked a series of questions which monitors heart rate, sweating and blood pressure
Police tested 25 'low-level' sex offenders, with some making disclosures they might otherwise have been unlikely to and others apparently lying, the Times reported.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
IceHawk2009

Con


I would like to take a moment and apologize for my tardiness in posting a response; I have been very busy with my school work.


My first argument with this is that it is not a scientific study. This is a study done by a journalist. How much scientific credit would an article have if the next story is “See Miley Cyrus’s ridiculous outfit.”


My second problem is for the sake of argument let’s assume this is a scientific article. It has a horribly narrow sample population. The only people in this study can be generalized to are low level sex offenders. The next hole in this study is there is no control, it does not talk about the method, and it does not talk about if any of the subjects may have had medical conditions that could look like a false positive.


My third problem even ignoring all of my previous complaints is its one study. Is that enough to prove that the polygraph is reliable? What I mean is can you put faith when there is one article of evidence supporting it?


Imhellspawn2

Pro

Imhellspawn2 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
IceHawk2009

Con

IceHawk2009 forfeited this round.
Imhellspawn2

Pro

Imhellspawn2 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
IceHawk2009

Con

IceHawk2009 forfeited this round.
Imhellspawn2

Pro

Imhellspawn2 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.