Herr Alan,

If you have an irrefutable, space-age, unbeatable lie detector then you are the first in the world. There is a reason that courts don't accept them so as with the justice system the civil courts, industrial disciplinary systems etc. the judgement will have to rely on actual evidence.

Unfortunately Alan lives in a world of his own, and gets the lie detector test from US TV. If lie detector tests were legal in Australia, we would hear a lot less from the #metoo crowd - none of this believe women nonsense.

Meanwhile, I would settle for less of Alan B's unworldly, uneducated drivel.

Unbeatable lie detection is a combination of CFR (computer facial recognition) and thermal imaging of the brain, which always lights up without exception, in certain areas when deception is contemplated. Even when the subject is a gifted and consummate liar!

It can be covertly deployed in all manner of situations, at border entry points and our courts to name aa couple of useful situations.

The courts have yet to allow it because there is no legislation compelling them to do so, in which case they would become largely redundant and the rivers of gold which flow from there to the legal profession would dry up!

And they are the only real reasons we don't yet have the same in our courts or elsewhere.

Imagine our parliaments with that technology deployed! The pork pies would be exposed en masse to otherwise gullible public taken in by artful silver tongues.

We've had this technology over 2-3 three decades and the last thing dishonest politicians and career criminals want, is to see it deployed anywhere, let alone on the public media when they are giving interviews! Or in our courts when giving "evidence"!

Don't like the message? Attack the messenger why dontcha.

I get that the dishonest and ignorant fools don't want it to be true, but that won't make it untrue or me dishonest, or like ttbn, not wilfully ignorant or an airhead or both!

Better the world suspect you are a fool than open your mouth to remove all doubt!
Alan B.

Alan,

You're suggesting that a university tribunal wire up a witness, and use AI-run cameras and an MRI machine? You are clearly off your rocker.

A few questions:
1 How will you get these $m machines into the tribunal?
2 Who will pay for them and for the experts to run them?
3 As the accused is not required to testify or submit to this, and the assumption of guilt is not an option, the complainant can only be compelled to submit and testify.

As I said before, the tribunal is going to have to rely on real evidence