Daniel was serving on a jury in a murder trial. Testimony from expert witnesses suggested that the defendant was a true psychopath, incapable of empathy with others or of remorse for what he had done. The defendant's attorneys tried to get the judge to accept a lie detector test they had conducted privately, claiming that it proved that their client was innocent. The judge refused. How should Daniel interpret this information?
A) The judge was correct. If the defendant is a psychopath, he might not show the arousal that most honest people show during a lie detector test, and his results are unlikely to be valid.
B) The judge was in error. The lie detector test proved that the defendant was innocent, and this information should have been admitted to the trial proceedings.
C) The judge was correct. Lie detector tests are much worse than chance in detecting dishonesty.
D) The judge was in error. Lie detector tests are routinely used in courts of law, and the defendant had a right to have this information submitted during his trial.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The judge was correct in refusing to accept the lie detector test as evidence. Research has shown that psychopaths may not show the usual physiological responses that most people exhibit during a lie detector test, so the results would not be considered valid. Additionally, lie detector tests are not always reliable and are not admissible in court in many jurisdictions.

Daniel Was Serving on a Jury in a Murder Trial