2 ms·
They're notoriously inaccurate, but I don't think that courts have given up on them yet. And if you think that's bad, just wait until you're given an inaccurate
by leggomylibro 8y ago
They're notoriously inaccurate, but I don't think that courts have given up on them yet. And if you think that's bad, just wait until you're given an inaccurate brain scan to tell whether you're lying.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169260708002484 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016926070...
>The rates of correct detection in guilty and innocent subjects were 86%, which was better than other previously used methods.
Eh, that sounds close enough to 'beyond a reasonable doubt', right?
- daxorid 8y agoEyewitness testimony is also extraordinarily inaccurate, but courts overwhelmingly consider it as strong evidence of guilt. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-...
- jdironman 8y agoPeople win the lottery every day and those odds are very much against thrm, but they play the odds in hopes of a positive outcome. When talking about life and liberty and negative consequences there should be as few chances taken as possible. I don't think 86% is the best we can do.