I was watching Maury today as I do everyday with Tim, and I noticed a slight difference than what I normally see. Normally I see guys getting accused of cheating and the crowd booing at first until the guy is proven innocent, but this time there was a woman who was being accused and the crowd was actually clapping and awing for her until it was proven she was cheating. What's going on here? Why do people cheer for the women being accused and boo for guys before even finding out if they are guilty of what they are being accused of?
I asked Tim this very question, and he responded that because most the men shown on the show are guilty and not the women. I don't beg to differ, but I will argue that it is wrong to boo or look down on someone accused without first knowing for sure they did what they were accused of just because the majority of them are found guilty. That's called generalizing. This means that just because one or more men or women are a certain way along with doing certain things, talking a certain way, dressing a certain way, etc., then every single man or woman is generally the same even if they are not. 98% should not be the judging factor of the other 2% period.
This brings me to the topic of letting lie detector tests prove our guilt or innocence. I can't trust a lie detector test for the simple reason that it can either be fooled or it can fool you. It can be fooled because all it tests is the heart rate, nerves, and brain stimulation when asked a question. In order to actually pass even when lying, all one has to do is get the brain focused on something else such as pain. Once the brain is more focused on that, then when asked a question it will not be able to send the normal messages to the rest of the nervous system including the heart it would when lying or being honest and your body would remain calm enough to fool the test into showing truthful answers the whole time. The test could also fool you in that for someone like me who has anxiety issues, the responses that a lie detector would register as false would always be so even when you are telling the truth. The reason for this is because someone with anxiety issues is naturally a very nervous person and is subject to their heart racing when in times of anxiety. Just having to take the test to prove one's innocence is enough to make a naturally nervous person nervous enough to fail a lie detector test even if they are telling the truth. Also, take into effect yes or no questions that maybe the person taking the test does not know the definite yes or no to. They would of course, knowing they have to give one or the other, go based on what they do know, but either way it could turn out as lying because their brain cannot register a yes or a no making either answer a lie. Even experts that run the tests say that it is only 95-97% accurate. That still leaves 5-3% chance it can be wrong, but no one focuses on that fact. However, there are many states that no longer allow a lie detector test to be admissible in court as evidence because of the facts that have been proven showing how a lie detector test can actually be imperfect enough to send an innocent person to jail and a guilty one to be set free. There has been reports that even the experts can be off on the percentage of accuracy of the test, and that the percentage of the test's failures is a little higher than they want to admit to. Simple fact is, even with a lie detector test, don't just assume because the person failed they are guilty. Wait until actual physical evidence is given that cannot be denied as written in stone to judge. Take care and be safe always everyone.
0 comments:
Post a Comment