Lie detector test, Judge, Jury, Analyst, Psychologist...?
812939
I don't think the lie detector test is that reliable. It could seriously fluctuate at times when the person is telling the truth, and probably do nothing when they're lying... all b/c it's based on the body response. I'd say a "professional" can have the last word on the defendants behavior. Psychologists can be reliable and seriously determine someones actions and behavior and possible future predictions based on facts and what they see and hear.
429317
I'm not sure.  They may give you a brief IQ test and brief personality assessment.  Just be honest (tests are designed to pick up liars).
89888
Psychlogists analyse people characteristics and behaviour
455636
working in........  \n ballistcs  \n trace  \n DNA  \n interrogation  \n entemology   \n autopsy  \n identification  \n forensics
180096
psychology, psychopath, psychotherapy, psychoneuroimmunology, psychobiology.
423230
CSI\nPolice psychologist\nlaw columnist\nauthor
791621
in no way whatsoever ( it is not accurate enough for court ) sorry for the pause - at work\n\neven if we ever get a test that is 100% accurate the effect will be minimal \n\nwe would not use it in crime solving ( self incrimination ) nor in business ( right to privacy )
927256
Most of those professions, you say.  I'm glad you are not referring to all of them!  Well, barristers aren't paid to lie.  If they have reason (as opposed to merely suspicion) for believing that their client is lying to them, they have to ask the court to release them from representing him.  If they are found to have misled the court, then they are subject to disciplinary proceedings.
876608
A polygraph (commonly referred to as a lie detector) is a device that measures and records several physiological variables such as blood pressure, heart rate, respiration and skin conductivity while the subject is asked a series of questions. The measurements are posited to be indicators of anxiety that accompanies the telling of lies. Thus, measured anxiety is equated with telling untruths. However, if the subject exhibits anxiety for other reasons, or can control his anxiety level voluntarily, a measured response can result in unreliable conclusions. A polygraph test is also known as a psychophysiological detection of deception (PDD) examination.\n\nclick here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#History
716733
Polygraph tests are NOT admissible.  This is due to the fact, no evidence can be provided to support the responses.  Ive myself have seen where people have been found Innocent, even when the test result showed they probably have committed the offence.  The key word "probably"  would not stand up in a criminal court of law... you have to prove your case "beyond reasonable doubt".
973344
1 police\n2 witness\n3 murderer  and victim\n4 hangman\n5 judge and victim\n\ncommon sense
446042
Brain waves would still fall trap to the familiar problem of someone who believes deeply that what they are saying is true. A pathological liar would not activate lying centers of the brain, just as he would not have an anxiety response on a standard lie detector. Also, there's the problem that the fMRI does not necessarily measure neural activity, merely the presence of blood. Further, the areas that "light up" when one is lying could also activate for various other reasons. They are the areas that control "emotion, conflict, and cognitive control - the amygdala, rostral cingulate, caudate, and thalamus," all of which would be involved in an intense interrogation.
461003
Polygraphy is Quackery\n\nScientists overwhelmingly agree that polygraph "testing" is junk science. The only "raging debate" pits people who don't yet understand that it's flimflam against the growing number who do. \n\nOur government's stubborn reliance on this pseudoscience poses a clear and present danger: make-believe science yields make-believe security. \n\nThis non-profit, public interest website is dedicated to telling the truth about lie detectors that those with vested interests in perpetuating the polygraph don't want you to know. \n  \nThe lie detector is itself based on lies...\n\nDid you know it takes less training to give lie detector "tests" than it does to give haircuts? The longest polygraph school (run by the U.S. Government; perhaps its students are slow learners) produces newly minted polygraphers in just 14 weeks -- less than half the time it takes to graduate from a typical barber college. But while barber college graduates can cut hair, polygraph school graduates cannot detect lies. \n \nThe dirty little secret behind the polygraph is that the "test" depends on trickery, not science. The person being "tested" is not supposed to know that while the polygraph operator declares that all questions must be answered truthfully, warning that the slightest hint of deception will be detected, he secretly assumes that denials in response to certain questions -- called "control" questions -- will be less than truthful. An example of a commonly used control question is, "Did you ever lie to get out of trouble?" The polygrapher steers the examinee into a denial by warning, for example, that anyone who would do so is the same kind of person who would commit the kind of behavior that is under investigation and then lie about it. But secretly, it is assumed that everyone has lied to get out of trouble. \n\nThe polygraph pens don't do a special dance when a person lies. The polygrapher scores the test by comparing physiological responses (breathing, blood pressure, heart, and perspiration rates) to these probable-lie control questions with reactions to relevant questions such as, "Did you ever commit an act of espionage against the United States?" (commonly asked in security screening). If the former reactions are greater, the examinee passes; if the latter are greater, he fails. If responses to both "control" and relevant questions are about the same, the result is deemed inconclusive. \n\nThe test also includes irrelevant questions such as, "Are the lights on in this room?" The polygrapher falsely explains that such questions provide a "baseline for truth," because the true answer is obvious. But in reality, they are not scored at all! They merely serve as buffers between pairs of relevant and "control" questions. \n\nThe simplistic methodology used in polygraph testing has no grounding in the scientific method: it is no more scientific than astrology or tarot cards. Government agencies value it because people who don't realize it's a fraud sometimes make damaging admissions. But as a result of reliance on this voodoo science, the truthful are often falsely branded as liars while the deceptive pass through. \n\nPerversely, the "test" is inherently biased against the truthful, because the more honestly one answers the "control" questions, and as a consequence feels less stress when answering them, the more likely one is to fail. Conversely, liars can beat the test by covertly augmenting their physiological reactions to the "control" questions. This can be done, for example, by doing mental arithmetic, thinking exciting thoughts, altering one's breathing pattern, or simply biting the side of the tongue. Truthful persons can also use these techniques to protect themselves against the risk of a false positive outcome. Although polygraphers fre
1066014
Some psychologists believe that pathological liars aren't able to immediately distinguish between what is and isn't true-- they often believe everything they say.  In this case, "truth" becomes relative, and a moot point.
300511
There is no such thing, although various more or less unscrupulous characters have tried lots of things.  Chloral hydrate was one (the classic "Mickey Finn" drug), scopolomine another, and sodium pentothal have all been tried, as have hallucinogens such as LSD (the CIA worked on this one).  Most sedatives, tranquilizers, and anesthetics have been tried for this purpose; mostly they produce stuporous babbling and/or unconsciousness, and certainly never extract the "truth" from anyone who doesn't want to tell it.  As with all other forms of mental manipulation/\ntorture, the subject is most likely to tell the inquisitor what he/she thinks he wants to hear.  All such methods/techniques are at best unethical and at worst immoral and inhumane.\n\nIn a related matter, we know that standard "lie detector" methods don't work either.  By using measurements of easily recordable physiological variables (heart rate, respiration rate, blood pressure, skin electrical conductivity) the operator is supposed to be able to tell when the subject is intentionally telling a lie.  The results are variable and unpredictable in normal people with nothing to hide, and can be easily manipulated by guilty subjects who know how the tests work.\n\nHonesty is a voluntary virtue; it cannot be forced except by the worst kind of physical abuse we associate with the Spanish Inquisition, the KGB, and the Iranian SAVAK.  Hopefully civilization will continue to abhor and reject that kind of inhumanity.
727553
criminal psychology, criminal justice, or psychology
1041652
Yes.   They're pretty good at detecting phony people who don't really believe the things they say.  They love justice, and typically they care more about truth than they do about usefulness.  I like teenagers (and kids) quite a lot.  They're so free of BS.  (And no, I'm not one myself)