If you had a device that could determine guilt would you want Courts to use it?

[Optimus_Prime_]

Let's say we invent a device, and for arguments sake let's say the device is highly accurate. The device can read your mind (not control your thoughts, just read them) and read your memories. So if you killed someone the device could know for certain if you did. Now I'm simply limiting this arguments to the confines of a courtroom, although I realize such a device would have other implications. So if you had a method, we'll say mind reading, where you could 100% determine whether someone committed a crime would you like Justice to be doled out in this fashion.

 

[Erzengel]

What about insane people who may not have committed a crime but think they have?

Also, I kinda think that OJ is guilty but I think he honestly convinced himself that he didn't do it.

 

[mrvlknight21]

Yes. ABSOLUTELY YES.

 

[Raiden]

I think getting this device to be recognized not just by the courts but also by the GA as reliable and accurate will be a tough sell in itself, and even if they use it I don't think every case can use it (like what Erzengel said). However, I'd love to have something that can determine the truth since the lie-detector test has proved to be less than reliable because some people can regulate their heart rate to circumvent the test.

 

[scarletwonder]

What about insane people who may not have committed a crime but think they have?

Would be the same for people who don't consider themselves guilty possibly due to a mental health problem.

Definately if it was a fool/tamper proof way to get to the truth I think. But having said that I would only want it to be seen in the Supreme Court and not in the high courts, or civil courts.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Not only would that device make lawyers useless and add greatly to the No. of unemployed people, judges would be useless too, with some minor exceptions for advising

Hell no

 

[TheZink]

The way I remember something I experienced will be completely different than anyone else who was there.

So while something like this might work for "cut-and-dry" cases like murder, other cases such as assault and battery, harassment etc will be hard to determine who was in the right.

We have a system, and even though it can be faulty it does work. It is up to the prosecution and defense to best present their cases.

 

[Ultra Lantern]

My answer is YES.

 

[bell110]

I say no. And if such a device was ever created, I say it should immediately be distroyed.

 

[KyleDW2]

I don't see why it shouldn't be used. In this fantasy world, with this fantasy device that could 100% determine guilt or innocence, I can see no downside to using it. If you're innocent it tells nothing bad and clears you in seconds with no speculation afterwards, if you're guilty you deserve to have it used. Its win win.

 

[mrvlknight21]

Casey Anthony case-a new reason to use this technology (if it existed).

 

[Manic]

What about insane people who may not have committed a crime but think they have?

Would be the same for people who don't consider themselves guilty possibly due to a mental health problem.

And then you've got people who feel responsible for the actions of others.

Guilt is a powerful emotion, and like all emotions it doesn't always follow logic. People can feel guilty for things that aren't necessarily their own fault.

 

[RedSkull]

Of course if such a thing existed it should be used, but it's impossible to create so it's just hypothetical. For some reason they never subjected Casey Anthony to a polygraph. You wanna know if that girl really lied you should subject her to a polygraph without warning...but the law protects her to murder and not be subjected to such things

 

[Manic]

Aren't polygraphs non-admissible in court because they're not always reliable?

 

[mrvlknight21]

Aren't polygraphs non-admissible in court because they're not always reliable?

Correct. UNLESS the person being polygraphed agrees/consents to it being allowed prior to the test (I have only had one person do this).

But, many people, even those in law enforcement will tell you that they aren't accurate. Our polygrapher told me he thinks they are 90% accurate. And of course, there is always the chance of an "inconclusive" result.

 

[C. Lee]

Correct. UNLESS the person being polygraphed agrees/consents to it being allowed prior to the test (I have only had one person do this).

But, many people, even those in law enforcement will tell you that they aren't accurate. Our polygrapher told me he thinks they are 90% accurate. And of course, there is always the chance of an "inconclusive" result.

It's also funny how the police will want one performed, but if it's conclusions throw doubt on his being guilty they act like it meant nothing in the first place.

 

[Hound55]

Depends how obtrusive it is and how well privacy/confidentiality for facts unrelated to the trial can be held.

 

[Colossal Spoons]

Not one legit reason against it so far. This idea is a go

 

[Sentinel X]

Why exactly are people saying no? .... I'm not trying to be difficult, I just really don't understand whats the problem.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I say no. Everyone is guilty of something, and while I like the idea of every killer getting the full punishment in court I hate the idea of some drug user or petty theif not having the ability to potentially get away scott free.

 

[Colossal Spoons]

I say no. Everyone is guilty of something, and while I like the idea of every killer getting the full punishment in court I hate the idea of some drug user or petty theif not having the ability to potentially get away scott free.

Whaaaat? Why should any guilt party potentially get away free. Whether you stole a loaf of bread or a car, the courts should find you guilty.

 

[SuperFerret]

Invasion of privacy and violating the fifth amendment.

 

[Spider-Nerd]

Invasion of privacy and violating the fifth amendment.

Nail on the head. Serious search/seizure and confrontation clause issues.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Whaaaat? Why should any guilt party potentially get away free. Whether you stole a loaf of bread or a car, the courts should find you guilty.

Invasion of privacy and violating the fifth amendment.

^This and sometimes the criminal is the one in the right and the law is wrong, these things tend to come out during trial deliberations, I feel that's ultimately more important than a machine that would essentially render "guilt" and "innocence" into black and white concepts.

 

[Q45]

Let's say we invent a device, and for arguments sake let's say the device is highly accurate. The device can read your mind (not control your thoughts, just read them) and read your memories. So if you killed someone the device could know for certain if you did. Now I'm simply limiting this arguments to the confines of a courtroom, although I realize such a device would have other implications. So if you had a method, we'll say mind reading, where you could 100% determine whether someone committed a crime would you like Justice to be doled out in this fashion.

Yes, but here's the trick to it: you can only legally use it at the very end of the case, after all the evidence is shown but before the final verdict is made. we'd still have to go through all the processes but at the end we'd pull out the machine. this way there's all the proof on the table. Good sci-fi plot I think.