Hypothetical law question

#1

SamRebel35

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
15,327
Likes
12,163
#1
I was listening to the Adam Carolla pod cast the other day, and he had an interesting idea about how criminal trials could be conducted in the future. His idea is based on the premise that, if brain scanning machines evolve so much that they can tell if a person is lying 99.6% of the time, then we could do away with a jury and judgement system. Simply use the suspect's scan evaluation as evidence of guilt or not. I think it is an interesting idea because it would almost certainly be a more accurate and efficient way of determining guilt or innocence, but it would come at the expense of possibly multiple infringements of rights. What issues would this method of judgement bring up in your mind?
 
#2
#2
If polygraph tests aren't generally admissible now, why would they be in the future?
 
#4
#4
If polygraph tests aren't generally admissible now, why would they be in the future?

I've always assumed their accuracy was the reason for not being admissible. Hypothetically, if the accuracy problem is mitigated, would there be other issues to this?
 
#6
#6
I've always assumed their accuracy was the reason for not being admissible. Hypothetically, if the accuracy problem is mitigated, would there be other issues to this?

I thought polygraph tests were supposed to be 99%+ accurate.

Never mind. Google shows that to be false.
 
#9
#9
I was listening to the Adam Carolla pod cast the other day, and he had an interesting idea about how criminal trials could be conducted in the future. His idea is based on the premise that, if brain scanning machines evolve so much that they can tell if a person is lying 99.6% of the time, then we could do away with a jury and judgement system. Simply use the suspect's scan evaluation as evidence of guilt or not. I think it is an interesting idea because it would almost certainly be a more accurate and efficient way of determining guilt or innocence, but it would come at the expense of possibly multiple infringements of rights. What issues would this method of judgement bring up in your mind?

No!!

Right now a person has a chance, no matter what crap the prosecution pulls. With a machine like that you would not a prayer. Remember the gov't would be the ones with, controlling and more importantly paying for the machines.

In other words the machines will read how the prosecution wants them to read.
 
#11
#11
The fundamental problem is that many cases are not just about who is telling the truth, but rather whether, depending on which version of events you believe, it constitutes a crime. Sometimes a jury believes the State's case, and still thinks it does not meet the definition of the crime provided to them by the Court.

No machine can substitute for that collective judgment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#12
#12
The fundamental problem is that many cases are not just about who is telling the truth, but rather whether, depending on which version of events you believe, it constitutes a crime. Sometimes a jury believes the State's case, and still thinks it does not meet the definition of the crime provided to them by the Court.

No machine can substitute for that collective judgment.

I'd let R2D2 defend me before I'd let you represent me in any way shape or form. Collective judgement be damned.

:twocents:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#15
#15
If polygraph tests aren't generally admissible now, why would they be in the future?

25 years ago people could have asked the same thing about DNA evidence collected at crime scenes. Now, it's widely accepted science that has been used to convict countless criminals. There's no way of knowing how much that kind of technology could advance in the coming years. I agree with everyone else though that using that method would clearly require an amendment to the Constitution.
 
#16
#16
they've talked about using a truth serum on the Aurora shooter to find out if he's really insane. Can't imagine Constitutionality is really a concern for many anymore

besides, anyone who has watched Maury knows there are lots of incorrect polygraph results
 
#17
#17
they've talked about using a truth serum on the Aurora shooter to find out if he's really insane. Can't imagine Constitutionality is really a concern for many anymore

besides, anyone who has watched Maury knows there are lots of incorrect polygraph results

Or, they could've just listened to his doctor.

Aurora Shooter's Doctor Warned Campus Police
 
#18
#18
Ok - dude did it. But what about defenses? Like the necessity defense. There needs to be discretion in the criminal process.
 
#19
#19
I would imagine this borders on self incrimination.

I'll stick with someone having to prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt vs me having to prove my innocence beyond a reasonable doubt
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#20
#20
My concern would be whether or not these machines/results could be manipulated. My guess is that they could be.
 
#21
#21
I would imagine this borders on self incrimination.

I'll stick with someone having to prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt vs me having to prove my innocence beyond a reasonable doubt

I don't disagree with that principle. Even then, I think this would, ironically, lead to far fewer cases of innocent people being found guilty.
 
#22
#22
I don't disagree with that principle. Even then, I think this would, ironically, lead to far fewer cases of innocent people being found guilty.

I think it would lead to more.

The goal of a prosecutor is to get convictions, not to find the truth. Conviction rates equal re-election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#23
#23
I think it would lead to more.

The goal of a prosecutor is to get convictions, not to find the truth. Conviction rates equal re-election.

Right, so if you remove a prosecutor from the equation and let the machine do the work (given the machine is 99.9% accurate), it seems that it would prove innocence even in cases where a prosecutor may have enough evidence to convince a jury of guilt.
 
#24
#24
Right, so if you remove a prosecutor from the equation and let the machine do the work (given the machine is 99.9% accurate), it seems that it would prove innocence even in cases where a prosecutor may have enough evidence to convince a jury of guilt.

There would always be someone benefiting from the prosecution/conviction.
 
#25
#25
I was listening to the Adam Carolla pod cast the other day, and he had an interesting idea about how criminal trials could be conducted in the future. His idea is based on the premise that, if brain scanning machines evolve so much that they can tell if a person is lying 99.6% of the time, then we could do away with a jury and judgement system. Simply use the suspect's scan evaluation as evidence of guilt or not. I think it is an interesting idea because it would almost certainly be a more accurate and efficient way of determining guilt or innocence, but it would come at the expense of possibly multiple infringements of rights. What issues would this method of judgement bring up in your mind?

So, Carolla wants to get rid of Fifth Amendment protections? Further, if we are going to posit such incredible brain scanning machines, what happens if we also posit brain control devices (or, technology that counters these scanners)?

I would assume that with nano-technology, one could have such devices without being detected.
 

VN Store



Back
Top