A simple solution so why isn't it implemented??? A lie detector test!

[healthmyths]

Given that many asylum-seekers arrive in the U.S. without supporting documents, immigration judges often rely solely on these individuals’ personal tales of persecution.
When the immigration judge specifically deems an immigrant’s testimony credible, both the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and federal circuit courts will generally defer to that finding.
However, when the immigration judge is silent on the immigrant’s credibility, different circuits handle the matter in different ways.
Justice Gorsuch, writing for the Court, explained that unlike other circuit courts, the Ninth Circuit has had a longstanding practice of assuming immigrants are being truthful, even when the immigration judge has made no such finding. He wrote:

MSN

So why not give the immigrant a lie detector test?
It would certainly give better credence that taking the immigrant's word.

 

[Auld Phart]

Nice idea, but most lie detectors give inconclusive results.

 

[Moonglow]

Nice idea, but most lie detectors give inconclusive results.

Healthyfits is eventually going to want to interrogate them with waterboarding since it is not a form of punishment to a Republican..

 

[Dragonlady]

Given that many asylum-seekers arrive in the U.S. without supporting documents, immigration judges often rely solely on these individuals’ personal tales of persecution.
When the immigration judge specifically deems an immigrant’s testimony credible, both the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and federal circuit courts will generally defer to that finding.
However, when the immigration judge is silent on the immigrant’s credibility, different circuits handle the matter in different ways.
Justice Gorsuch, writing for the Court, explained that unlike other circuit courts, the Ninth Circuit has had a longstanding practice of assuming immigrants are being truthful, even when the immigration judge has made no such finding. He wrote:

MSN

So why not give the immigrant a lie detector test?
It would certainly give better credence that taking the immigrant's word.

For the same reason they're not admissable in a court of law. They're not in any way reliable.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Given that many asylum-seekers arrive in the U.S. without supporting documents, immigration judges often rely solely on these individuals’ personal tales of persecution.
When the immigration judge specifically deems an immigrant’s testimony credible, both the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and federal circuit courts will generally defer to that finding.
However, when the immigration judge is silent on the immigrant’s credibility, different circuits handle the matter in different ways.
Justice Gorsuch, writing for the Court, explained that unlike other circuit courts, the Ninth Circuit has had a longstanding practice of assuming immigrants are being truthful, even when the immigration judge has made no such finding. He wrote:

MSN

So why not give the immigrant a lie detector test?
It would certainly give better credence that taking the immigrant's word.

Aside from being inconclusive, polygraph tests can be easily beaten, hence the reason they are inadmissible in court.

 

[Resnic]

Given that many asylum-seekers arrive in the U.S. without supporting documents, immigration judges often rely solely on these individuals’ personal tales of persecution.
When the immigration judge specifically deems an immigrant’s testimony credible, both the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and federal circuit courts will generally defer to that finding.
However, when the immigration judge is silent on the immigrant’s credibility, different circuits handle the matter in different ways.
Justice Gorsuch, writing for the Court, explained that unlike other circuit courts, the Ninth Circuit has had a longstanding practice of assuming immigrants are being truthful, even when the immigration judge has made no such finding. He wrote:

MSN

So why not give the immigrant a lie detector test?
It would certainly give better credence that taking the immigrant's word.

The same reason they don't use lie detectors in court, it's all bullshit and HIGHLY circumstantial. They are not based on science or fact. A lie detector is purely a junk device that no track record of historically being accurate or dependable because the polygraph reader is more or less just intterupting the results.

There was even an episode on them in the show Penn and teller bullshit.

 

[toobfreak]

So why not give the immigrant a lie detector test? It would certainly give better credence that taking the immigrant's word.

How so? The Lie Detector is not very accurate or scientific and many can beat it, especially pathological liars common to the criminal element.

 

[bendog]

Given that many asylum-seekers arrive in the U.S. without supporting documents, immigration judges often rely solely on these individuals’ personal tales of persecution.
When the immigration judge specifically deems an immigrant’s testimony credible, both the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and federal circuit courts will generally defer to that finding.
However, when the immigration judge is silent on the immigrant’s credibility, different circuits handle the matter in different ways.
Justice Gorsuch, writing for the Court, explained that unlike other circuit courts, the Ninth Circuit has had a longstanding practice of assuming immigrants are being truthful, even when the immigration judge has made no such finding. He wrote:

MSN

So why not give the immigrant a lie detector test?
It would certainly give better credence that taking the immigrant's word.

To high tech. We could just do the "witch test" and toss them back into the Rio Grande, and if they float they're guilty, so we could just shoot them from the river bank. Of course we'd need alligators or something to dispose of the bodies and not contaminate the river.

 

[BluesLegend]

The Dem reaction to truth would rip space time.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Given that many asylum-seekers arrive in the U.S. without supporting documents, immigration judges often rely solely on these individuals’ personal tales of persecution.
When the immigration judge specifically deems an immigrant’s testimony credible, both the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and federal circuit courts will generally defer to that finding.
However, when the immigration judge is silent on the immigrant’s credibility, different circuits handle the matter in different ways.
Justice Gorsuch, writing for the Court, explained that unlike other circuit courts, the Ninth Circuit has had a longstanding practice of assuming immigrants are being truthful, even when the immigration judge has made no such finding. He wrote:

MSN

So why not give the immigrant a lie detector test?
It would certainly give better credence that taking the immigrant's word.

You realize that there's no such thing as a true "lie detector test", right? The results of those things are so unreliable that they're largely not admissable in court.

 

[WTF19]

So why not give the immigrant a lie detector test? It would certainly give better credence that taking the immigrant's word.

How so? The Lie Detector is not very accurate or scientific and many can beat it, especially pathological liars common to the criminal element.

scum demonRATS love these machines

 

[healthmyths]

Given that many asylum-seekers arrive in the U.S. without supporting documents, immigration judges often rely solely on these individuals’ personal tales of persecution.
When the immigration judge specifically deems an immigrant’s testimony credible, both the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and federal circuit courts will generally defer to that finding.
However, when the immigration judge is silent on the immigrant’s credibility, different circuits handle the matter in different ways.
Justice Gorsuch, writing for the Court, explained that unlike other circuit courts, the Ninth Circuit has had a longstanding practice of assuming immigrants are being truthful, even when the immigration judge has made no such finding. He wrote:

MSN

So why not give the immigrant a lie detector test?
It would certainly give better credence that taking the immigrant's word.

You realize that there's no such thing as a true "lie detector test", right? The results of those things are so unreliable that they're largely not admissable in court.

Where are your facts? Why do people like you make such ignorant comments?
FACT:
But generally speaking, it's an individual judge's decision.
Each judge must make an evaluation based on the information provided, and so each court can decide differently.

Are Lie Detectors Admissible in Court? - FindLaw

On TV and in movies, polygraph tests or lie detectors are a popular way to nail a suspect. But are they actually admissible in court? Courts don't have to admit lie detector tests, according to a U.S. Supreme Court case that specifies how courts deal with scientific evidence. Instead, individual...

blogs.findlaw.com

FACT is they are allowed ...at the discretion of the JUDGE!!!
NOW more importantly though, are you telling me that you'd rather believe a "JUDGE" who must determine
according to the SCOTUS..."longstanding practice of assuming immigrants are being truthful"
Do you understand what that means?
I'll put in simple terms. "Illegal immigrant" cries, moans, convinces Judge they are truthful. Judge allows illegal immigrant to stay in the USA! A known breaker of the law by coming across the border illegally is now able to
USE YOURS and mine tax revenue! Wow... do you really then believe a JUDGE knows better than the lie detector?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nice idea, but most lie detectors give inconclusive results.

The results are absolutely conclusive, but the only way to get those results is to inspire the fear necessary to detect the lie. The results are inadmissible, not because they are unreliable, but because they violate 5th Amendment protections.

 

[healthmyths]

Nice idea, but most lie detectors give inconclusive results.

The results are absolutely conclusive, but the only way to get those results is to inspire the fear necessary to detect the lie. The results are inadmissible, not because they are unreliable, but because they violate 5th Amendment protections.

Where are your FACTS? Because I provide a link!
Did you not read the below FACTS????
But generally speaking, it's an individual judge's decision.
Each judge must make an evaluation based on the information provided,
and so each court can decide differently.

Are Lie Detectors Admissible in Court? - FindLaw

On TV and in movies, polygraph tests or lie detectors are a popular way to nail a suspect. But are they actually admissible in court? Courts don't have to admit lie detector tests, according to a U.S. Supreme Court case that specifies how courts deal with scientific evidence. Instead, individual...

blogs.findlaw.com

You obviously unlike me have never taken a lie detector test as I've done for future employers.
Tell the truth and there is no problem. LIE and the 3 different monitors attached to your body will reflect!

 

[Rigby5]

Nice idea, but most lie detectors give inconclusive results.

The results are absolutely conclusive, but the only way to get those results is to inspire the fear necessary to detect the lie. The results are inadmissible, not because they are unreliable, but because they violate 5th Amendment protections.

I constantly beat lie detector tests.
There are several way.
One is to take an anti anxiety drug that suppresses adrenaline.
Another is to cause pain every time they want you to tell the truth in order to establish a baseline.
You can just pinch some skin, but I hide a thumbtack in my shoe.
Some people also simply are pathological and have no fear of lying.
Other people are just so nervous and insecure, they seem to always be lying to the tester.
They do not violate the 5th amendment if you willingly agree to take the lie detector test.
But there is no across the board means of certifying those giving the test, and it is all very subjective.

 

[Rigby5]

Nice idea, but most lie detectors give inconclusive results.

The results are absolutely conclusive, but the only way to get those results is to inspire the fear necessary to detect the lie. The results are inadmissible, not because they are unreliable, but because they violate 5th Amendment protections.

Where are your FACTS? Because I provide a link!
Did you not read the below FACTS????
But generally speaking, it's an individual judge's decision.
Each judge must make an evaluation based on the information provided,
and so each court can decide differently.

Are Lie Detectors Admissible in Court? - FindLaw

On TV and in movies, polygraph tests or lie detectors are a popular way to nail a suspect. But are they actually admissible in court? Courts don't have to admit lie detector tests, according to a U.S. Supreme Court case that specifies how courts deal with scientific evidence. Instead, individual...

blogs.findlaw.com

You obviously unlike me have never taken a lie detector test as I've done for future employers.
Tell the truth and there is no problem. LIE and the 3 different monitors attached to your body will reflect!

There are 2 different points here getting confused together.
Sure a judge can allow the results of a lie detector test if he wants. But he then has to advise the jury of their unreliability.
Generally then can boost the defense, but can't really aid conviction.
But the reason everyone says lie detector evidence is inadmissible is that they can't be forced.
You not only can't be made to take lie detector test, but the jury can't even be told you refused to take one.
So since they are so unreliable that they only help the defense, no prosecutor would ever suggest using one.

 

[healthmyths]

Nice idea, but most lie detectors give inconclusive results.

The results are absolutely conclusive, but the only way to get those results is to inspire the fear necessary to detect the lie. The results are inadmissible, not because they are unreliable, but because they violate 5th Amendment protections.

I constantly beat lie detector tests.
There are several way.
One is to take an anti anxiety drug that suppresses adrenaline.
Another is to cause pain every time they want you to tell the truth in order to establish a baseline.
You can just pinch some skin, but I hide a thumbtack in my shoe.
Some people also simply are pathological and have no fear of lying.
Other people are just so nervous and insecure, they seem to always be lying to the tester.
They do not violate the 5th amendment if you willingly agree to take the lie detector test.
But there is no across the board means of certifying those giving the test, and it is all very subjective.

All of what you said is TRUE!
In the two lie detector tests for an employer, i actually lied when they asked "have you lied on any questions"?
I said "no". And if there was a noticeable change, and then they asked.."what question?" "I would say the last one"!
BUT not all the illegal immigrants are as adept at fooling these tests and so there would be a majority of lying tendencies that would be monitored.
To me the principle is this:
If as the fact (I'm attaching supported by a link...which you did not by the way!!!)
"Each judge must make an evaluation based on the information provided, and so each court can decide differently."Are Lie Detectors Admissible in Court?
presents that a human being, seasoned I'm sure to detecting lies is the FINAL arbitrator, I would think these
judges would want as much validation for their decisions, including lie detector results.
Why would ANY one holding a gavel on a life affecting decision want to depend SOLELY on a human's perceptions?
If I were a judge in this situation, I'd like to see a lie detector...not on everyone but on those that I as a judge would
find questionable. To me that is how "blindfolded" justice should work!

 

[healthmyths]

Given that many asylum-seekers arrive in the U.S. without supporting documents, immigration judges often rely solely on these individuals’ personal tales of persecution.
When the immigration judge specifically deems an immigrant’s testimony credible, both the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and federal circuit courts will generally defer to that finding.
However, when the immigration judge is silent on the immigrant’s credibility, different circuits handle the matter in different ways.
Justice Gorsuch, writing for the Court, explained that unlike other circuit courts, the Ninth Circuit has had a longstanding practice of assuming immigrants are being truthful, even when the immigration judge has made no such finding. He wrote:

MSN

So why not give the immigrant a lie detector test?
It would certainly give better credence that taking the immigrant's word.

You realize that there's no such thing as a true "lie detector test", right? The results of those things are so unreliable that they're largely not admissable in court.

And you didn't read the FACTS I provided which is obvious that you don't pay attention to even a little red dotted line under your "admissable" misspelling...even when it corrects you..."admissible"!

So for your ignorance here again the position of the courts with a link substantiating MY statement!
Each judge must make an evaluation based on the information provided, and so each court can decide differently.

Are Lie Detectors Admissible in Court? - FindLaw

On TV and in movies, polygraph tests or lie detectors are a popular way to nail a suspect. But are they actually admissible in court? Courts don't have to admit lie detector tests, according to a U.S. Supreme Court case that specifies how courts deal with scientific evidence. Instead, individual...

blogs.findlaw.com

In other words dummy.... the judge can determine whether or not the lie detector is admissible!