Why shouldn't a Defendant be able to demand that a Cop take a lie detector?

Show all answers

Post your answer

John	I second that motion, these lie detectors should be use on District attorney as well, because they cover the sh@t that the cops do. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Not To Serious	Because you as a defendant would catch them in to many lies Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

realchurchhistorian	What law says he can't? Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

NONAME	law enforcement is ''always right'' innocent until proven guilty bull sht officers lie 99.9% do! and where i live its your as is guilty until you can hopefully prove your own a*s innocent! man i agree law enforcement should have to do that! Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Chris R	if a cop demands we take a polygraph you can petition the judge that he take one too "equality under the law is paramount and mandatory " Chris R 2005 Grad Florida Coastal School of Law Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Alfred E Newman	It would "go off" only when they told the truth!!!! Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Wally1	We'd end up with a shortage of cops Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Billy D	simple cops are crooked and the police no it and they dont want to admit it Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Pimpin John	Cops can in fact be required to take a polygraph under certain circumstances, but this is for your attorney to request, not you. It would be up to the judge whether or not to allow it. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

dawn666annapolis	i second this... Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

dave48617	people can fake a lie detector out. poop happens, gl Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

lizi g	america is one f*cked up country but they should be able to be submitted to polygraph tests. the fact that they refuse to indicates that they do have something to hide. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

claret	Good question. I think that what you ask is perfectly reasonable, and like you (and they) say, if you have nothing to hide, why object to it. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

California Street Cop	If a lie detector was proven to be as reliable as.....Lets say DNA, then I would be all for it. However lie detectors in all shapes and sizes and designs are still not an exact and infallible science. For the same reason they are not admissible for defendants they are not admissible for police....They give false readings. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Smeagol AM	well as the burden of proof lies with the prosecution it would be a very good idea. just look at all the fit ups performed by the british police in the 60's, 70's and 80's. 6 innocent irish kids went to jail for over 10 years based mostly on the testimony of cops, and phoney confessions made up by the cops, so i'm all for that Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Happy-go-Lucky	If that were the case, how many cases would lose their star witness? Exactly why it wont happen...The bigger news of the day, on every channel, would be that a red light didnt go on in court today!!! Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Geoff C	Becuase lie detectors are not very accurate and thus the reson they are not admissable in court. They are given too much weight as being all knowing yet they are very innacurate. I have lied on them before and not been detected myself so I know they are not very accurate. To me it sounds liek you need to stay out of trouble Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Twinkie Thief	instead of doing that we need to take all small time criminals and bury them in the desert.... problem solved... interesting how the only people that feel the police are too harsh are those that break the law... to fix the problem with the police get rid of the worthless thieves and thugs... Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Mildred S	it will never happen, there is too much money at stake for the government to lose. I'd like to see it happen even 10 percent of the time for audit purposes. perjury is serious and it would be great to see some of the lies in court stop. work on getting better laws in your community that specifically address corrupt cops. you need tougher laws. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Logan Duckett	"Because for one since they are a higher power the court is on there side not the defendants so he can decide that he does not have to plus it wouldnt matter during a trial because they can not use a lie detector test result in or during a trial". Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

mikeysco	You're absolutely right: a law can be passed to make polygraph results admissible in court. As soon as that happens, come back and ask this question again. And of course you're suggesting that a defendant be held to the same standard, right? We can pass a law that allows that, too. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Spoken Majority	you can't pass a law that says it is admissable for one person and not for another. that would be discriminatory. as far as taking the test, I would. I could care less. however, the defense would have to pay for it. and if they are court appointed defense attorney, the defendant would have to pay for it out of his own pocket, prior to court. I've got nothing to hide. so no problem here. but, if it is admissable for me, it should be admissable for the defendant. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

DC	The biggest problem is the lie detector is not admisable in court, So either way it is useless. The stress (voice) test is the same way. We are a society that needs to have faith in the system for it to even have a chance of working. It is true there are bad cops out ther however there are far more good ones and that is what we rely on. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Sparkles	Being as these are not admissible in court, exactly what is the point of doing that? FYI : Lie detector tests were at one time admissible. There are too many flaws in them so they cannot be used. A psychopath can pass the test. I used to work internal security for the largest diamond companies in the world. These tests were finally outlawed as being used in order to base a person being hired as well as being admissible in a court of law. I for one would like to see one administered to you. Then you see if you would want it used in court. The least reaction to a question can label you a liar. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

GunnyC	Because no one can be required to take a lie detector test in criminal proceedings including the defendant or any one else. I would say more police officers would be willing to submit to one and have the results part of the court record then defendants would. The Fifth Amendment actually would since they had done a sworn statement that makes it a crime so they could refuse to do it. I would say that you have a good idea but then everyone testifying would be required to do the same thing and the defendant should be required to testify. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Scaredy Kat	Lie detector test results are inadmissible in court-- they just aren't reliable and aren't always accurate. So if the police officer took a lie detector test, you couldn't even present the results at trial. It goes in your favor, too, though. If you failed a lie detector test, the court wouldn't necessarily know about it. What's your beef with the police, anyway? EDIT-- GOOD LORD, you have some serious issues. Your rant just goes ON and ON and ON. Let it go, already. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

tallerfella	Jackie, You are such a hoot! You can demand all you want. That stated, just as with a defendant, the test would be INADMISSIBLE in a court of law. So, with your logic, then we the people of the state, DEMAND that all defendants take a lie detector test. That would be fair huh? So I'm guessin that you were "wrongly accused" of something in your spoiled little mind and this is your way of getting "back" at the police. And like all good trolls, all of your contact information is "hidden". Grow up THEN DEFENSANT'S RESULT WOULD BE ADMISSABLE AS WELL. WOULD YOU BE SO QUICK TO STAND UP TO THAT TEST YOU LITTLE WHINER? Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

trooper3316	Two reasons 1. Because the officer is not on trial, the defendant is. If anyone should be mandated, the defendant should... and 2. Lie detectors are not admissible in court. (so much for #1) Of course, I'm not opposed to it, as long as everyone gets one, including the Defense Attorney and defense witnesses. And I say the following as a matter of legal argument only: You are wrong. The Fifth Amendment does apply, as if the officer was caught lying, it would be used against him. And, to answer your other question to me, read my response again... I would not be opposed to it, as long as everyone gets them. Think of how much money the taxpayers would save if they gave the defendant one. 99% of them would never make it to the courtroom. Huh? You said: "The Fifth Amendment agains self incrimination doesn't apply to Police Testimony, right?" (I put that in quotes, I don't want to take credit for the mispelling). I've read the Fifth Amendment, apparently you haven't. It applies to all citizens, including police officers. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No