Do you think that lie-detector tests are useful or complete nonsense?
Image from Shutterstock.
Last week, we noted that California is requiring paroled sex offenders to take periodic lie-detector tests, and that British and Dutch researchers are developing a new form of lie-detector test that they say has a high success rate.
So this week, we’d like to ask you: What do you think of lie-detector tests? Do you think they should be allowed as evidence in court? Do you think that they could provide useful information to a parole officer? Or do you think conclusions drawn from such tests are useless? If you distrust the tests that are now in use, are you even open to the idea that enough research and technology could create a working product?
Answer in the comments.
Read the answers to last week’s question: What lawyer, past or present, do you think would be a good subject for a feature film biopic?
Featured answer:
Posted by RJH DC: “Thurgood Marshall. Two separate movies: young Thurgood trained by Charles Houston defending death penalty cases and helping to create the strategy that would eventually be Brown v. Board of Education, which would be the second movie. Long overdue.”
Do you have an idea for a future question of the week? If so, contact us.
