While reading chapter 11, I became very intrigued by all of the information presented about lying, particularly methods of lie detection. I've always been one to watch crime shows such as Law and Order or CSI and that, up to this point, has been the basis for all of my knowledge on lie detection methods. I was very surprised at the varying techniques that could be used to detect lies, not only the polygraph test but also the guilty knowledge test, brain fingerprinting, and integrity tests. I thought it was very interesting that lie detector tests rest on the basis of the Pinocchio response, or a measure of physiological or behavioral responses that can indicate lying. Another interesting point is the variation in questions that can be given to the test-taker. Needless to say, I will think differently about the methods of lie detection used on Law and Order next time a character is convicted of first degree murder.
Questions that I thought of when reading this section though, have to do with our justice system using methods of lie detection. Do our courts rely on the results of a lie detector test, or is that just the way that Hollywood displays it on TV?
The link above includes information regarding a Minnesota court case. Though Dressel, the man who is accused of harming his daughter, ADMITTED to hurting her post-polygraph test, the court ruled it inadmissible because it had to do with the lie detector test. Is this wrong?
I also watch Law and Order frequently and have picked up on some of the techniques they use to detect lies. However, it always seems that they make it much easier to detect lies in the characters than it actually to detect lies in real world situations. I can't help but wonder how reliable certain lie detector tests are, especially the polygraph test. It has been proven that one can cheat this test, so how reliable can it really be?