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

[Hound55]

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.

Woooooooooooooow...

 

[Colossal Spoons]

Yeah Hound, yeah

 

[mrvlknight21]

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.

That is because the police know that it is just an investigative tool. I have had SEVERAL confessions stem from polygraphs and it was not because the person failed the polygraph. In some instances, they never even took it.

I recall at least twice that a person got all strapped up and then said they wanted to confess (or at least give a partial confession). In fact, one was a man who was molesting his own two daughters (he had previously been convicted of murder after butchering a girlfriend). He gave a partial confession. Keep in mind, the polygraph results were not admissable, but this statement was. He was convicted earlier this year.

Others, when confronted with the results, will try to explain why they failed and in essence either confess OR give the police something more to work with or investigate.

So, the polygraph itself is not the end all, be all. But it is a valuable tool for investigations.

 

[mrvlknight21]

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.

What if, for whatever reason (cost, etc), this device could only be used in felony cases or cases where there was a physical victim (aggravated assault, murder, child molestation, etc)...would you agree that it would be good to go then?

No petty thefts, no misdemeanor shoplfting, just either felonies or crimes of violence/sex crimes.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I don't think it should be used because it would be accepted to widely as absolute truth.

The fact is that machines can be faulty, or can be manipulated and corrupted by malicious people.

It's too dangerous to base convictions on that.

 

[bell110]

Invasion of privacy and violating the fifth amendment.

This.

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.

Then what's the sense of having a trial and wasting all that money?

I don't think it should be used because it would be accepted to widely as absolute truth.

The fact is that machines can be faulty, or can be manipulated and corrupted by malicious people.

It's too dangerous to base convictions on that.

This also. What's to stop someone with an agenda from lying for the machine?

This is too much like policing someone's thoughts.

Ever seen "Minority Report" with Tom Cruise? Would you be comfortable with this machine helping to prosecute someone who was thinking about a crime before they actually commited one? If this machine were to exist, surely that would be one of the eventual uses for it.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

I was thinking Minority Report too, bell.

Such a hypothetical machine will never be invented. Not because we don't have the technology, but because it would put a million defense lawyers, prosecutors and judges out of business. Plus, the media loves a circus.

 

[Colossal Spoons]

Are we really concerned about the privacy of guilty parties. I could take the extreme route and argue against murderers and rapists but even petty crimes like shoplifting and vandalism deserve swift punishment. No more 40 appeals and hung juries and getting off on technicalities.

As for civil rights, those are reserved for law abiding citizens. You can't break the law then hide behind it.

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

Think of all the income citizens and the city will save by not having to pay them the absurd fees they charge. I don't know much about that particular career, but I'd imagine there are other options for a lawyer besides murder trials. There are patent disputes and what not. Heck, the company I work for is involved in some BS lawsuit every Tuesday.

^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.

I think it is black&white. Did you commit the crime or not? Your reasons for doing so can be discussed afterwards. Perhaps you stole so you could get medicine for your dying child. Or perhaps you killed that guy because he was going to kill you first. These are all valid reasons but none excuse guilt and they definitely SHOULD affect the guilty party's sentencing/punishment

 

[Hound55]

Are we really concerned about the privacy of guilty parties. I could take the extreme route and argue against murderers and rapists but even petty crimes like shoplifting and vandalism deserve swift punishment. No more 40 appeals and hung juries and getting off on technicalities.

As for civil rights, those are reserved for law abiding citizens. You can't break the law then hide behind it.



Think of all the income citizens and the city will save by not having to pay them the absurd fees they charge. I don't know much about that particular career, but I'd imagine there are other options for a lawyer besides murder trials. There are patent disputes and what not. Heck, the company I work for is involved in some BS lawsuit every Tuesday.

The reason why I said this:

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

Is because I'm assuming that the device can DETERMINE guilt in an individual case. You're assuming that they're all guilty parties when you say "Are we really concerned about the privacy of guilty parties."

Second of all; yes, we are really concerned about the rights of guilty parties. Just because someone may be guilty of an offence doesn't mean they reneg all rights. Not all offences are treated equally. People still hold inalienable human rights.

It's a hypocritical society that would trample on a citizens rights in this fashion in an effort to attain the balance of justice.

Also, criminal and corporate law aren't interchangable and such a move would indeed displace many lawyers and judges... and I'm sure there'd be some negative impact somewhere along the line as well...

 

[Hound55]

In fact, one was a man who was molesting his own two daughters (he had previously been convicted of murder after butchering a girlfriend). He gave a partial confession. Keep in mind, the polygraph results were not admissable, but this statement was. He was convicted earlier this year.

Well, there's one who slipped through the cracks without being rehabilitated...

 

[Colossal Spoons]

The reason why I said this:


Is because I'm assuming that the device can DETERMINE guilt in an individual case. You're assuming that they're all guilty parties when you say "Are we really concerned about the privacy of guilty parties."

Second of all; yes, we are really concerned about the rights of guilty parties. Just because someone may be guilty of an offence doesn't mean they reneg all rights. Not all offences are treated equally. People still hold inalienable human rights.

Suppose OP's machine was just hooked up to millions of cameras and satellites and literally played back the incident in question to determine whether the accused party was at the scene and/or committing the crime. I'm talking high-tech stuff, like cameras that can see through walls and pick up the faintest of sounds. Would this be just as invasive as the mind-probing?

It's a hypocritical society that would trample on a citizens rights in this fashion in an effort to attain the balance of justice.

I'll own up to my hypocrisy but it seems like there'll always be some law, amendment, etc to hide behind. At times, I swear we've given people "the right to commit crimes".

Also, criminal and corporate law aren't interchangable and such a move would indeed displace many lawyers and judges... and I'm sure there'd be some negative impact somewhere along the line as well...

Haha, well they'll have to retire early then. Which shouldn't be too hard with the cash they've likely accumulated.

 

[Hound55]

Suppose OP's machine was just hooked up to millions of cameras and satellites and literally played back the incident in question to determine whether the accused party was at the scene and/or committing the crime. I'm talking high-tech stuff, like cameras that can see through walls and pick up the faintest of sounds. Would this be just as invasive as the mind-probing?

That has it's own issues; it's already a moral dilemma with current technology. If CCTV footage happens to capture footage of a crime in place in a private dwelling because of how it's positioned, such evidence is inadmissable due to being invasive surveillence.

I'll own up to my hypocrisy but it seems like there's always be some law, amendment, etc to hide behind. At times, I swear we've given people "the right to commit crimes".

Such is the price of living in a free, non-authoritarian society.

 

[Colossal Spoons]

Brb, moving to Tatooine w/ Vision

 

[mrvlknight21]

Spoons is my new favorite Hypester.

Scratch that, he already was.....he just confirmed it.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Doesn't matter how effective the device is. You just know some slick lawyer will find a way to present things in such a manner that they're use it to they're teams advantage. Prosecution or Defense. Doesn't matter. People will still be unjustly punished, or unjustly released.

But, I'd be for it just to limit the number of cases that do.

 

[Hound55]

Meh, I'm still thankful society is as centred as it is.

Far from a perfect world, but as a general rule everyone who's proposed a Utopian society has instead created a world with one undesirable extreme or another.

 

[Hound55]

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

I figure it would just be a form of evidence, judges would still be involved (my previous comment regarding judges and lawyers was a joke)

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.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this.

Just trying to get my bearings on the similarities/differences between our court systems.

Do they have 'Found Proved' and 'Without Conviction' in the US as court outcomes too?

See in Australia, it's possible to receive a fine or bond without a conviction being held over one's name. I'm trying to see if that's the issue with this, people being convicted for relatively small crimes (although that's very different from what this post says).

 

[SuperFerret]

Far from a perfect world, but as a general rule everyone who's proposed a Utopian society has instead created a world with one undesirable extreme or another.

That's because a Utopia can't exist.

 

[Hound55]

That's because a Utopia can't exist.

 

[Colossal Spoons]

Spoons is my new favorite Hypester.

Scratch that, he already was.....he just confirmed it.

Haha, thanks. I'm not proud of taking away people's rights but I have a pretty black&white view of the law as far as guilt goes.

That's because a Utopia can't exist.

I could build something pretty close if I got to hand-pick the types of people that get to live in it.

 

[bell110]

Are we really concerned about the privacy of guilty parties. I could take the extreme route and argue against murderers and rapists but even petty crimes like shoplifting and vandalism deserve swift punishment. No more 40 appeals and hung juries and getting off on technicalities.

As for civil rights, those are reserved for law abiding citizens. You can't break the law then hide behind it.

We are concerned about the privacy of innocent parties. Everybody is innocent until proven guilty. Plus you have the right to not testify against yourself.

Suppose OP's machine was just hooked up to millions of cameras and satellites and literally played back the incident in question to determine whether the accused party was at the scene and/or committing the crime. I'm talking high-tech stuff, like cameras that can see through walls and pick up the faintest of sounds. Would this be just as invasive as the mind-probing?

Yeah, that's pretty invasive.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

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.

That's a good idea actually, I liked that.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Woooooooooooooow...

It's the same logic that makes Batman a fascist d-bag. Not everyone deserves to be punished even if they are caught. To me guilt and innocence are not black and white concepts. Yes, the ultimate purpose of a trial is to discover whether or not the defendant did the crime in question, but it also serves to allow the accused to be given their full hearing. Such a machine would first strip the defendant of his/her right not to incriminate yourself which is a very important right. Second it would deny the defendant his/her right to defend themselves, because once the machine rendered a 'verdict' there would be no deliberation.

What if, for whatever reason (cost, etc), this device could only be used in felony cases or cases where there was a physical victim (aggravated assault, murder, child molestation, etc)...would you agree that it would be good to go then?

I still feel like that 'guilt' is not definitive a concept enough that such a machine could be capable of delivering a fair verdict.

 

[Colossal Spoons]

Also, what innocent person would object to this if presented with the option?

 

[SuperFerret]

I could build something pretty close if I got to hand-pick the types of people that get to live in it.

But how long would that last? Not much of a utopia if it doesn't last very long.