Comments by "Ida Larsen" (@idalarsen2540) on "Dr. Phil To Former Couple Battling Over Their Children: ‘There’s Unfinished Emotional Business Be…" video.

  1. 😭😭😭
    6
  2. There's reasons for it not being admissable as evidence in court.
    5
  3.  @jaybee1248  And? There are MANY states that do things and have laws and regulations that are HELLA weird. So.. the fact that some states in one (developed) country does something, makes it right? Is that it? There's a reason (well, several) most states in America as well as no other developed country uses lie detector tests as proof in court. Remember that even the person that made those things up, says they don't really work (as intented). It's also important to note that even if the test was always 100% accurate, they only detect what the test subject PERCIEVES to be truthful, not what's ACTUALLY true. Like.. say you were to believe that the sky was green, not blue. You're subjected to that test, and the question is if the sky is blue, you'll answer no. The test will pick that up as truthful, despite how false it really is. See the point? It's understandable to use during investigations, but not as factual evidence in court, as it proves nothing. It's way too subjective. What some states in America do doesn't set the standard for what's right and fair. If what you're saying is true, then those states act irresponsibly. Most people really think that lie detector tests are a good and valid tool, when they're really not. So when a test is admitted and presented as evidence in court in front of a jury obvs consisting of "regular" citizens, they can be easily swayed by just that, as many people think they work really well, and is actual evidence and factual. It can truly cause innocent people wrongful convictions, as well as guilty people getting free. Allowing lie detector tests as part of the evidence should be cause for a mistrial, but that won't happen and the verdict won't be fair if they're allowed in court.
    2