…an overworked and underfunded probation service and some possibly very dangerous people. What could possibly go wrong?

Presumably only the lack of rivers near prisons stopped them using ducking stools.

Two reviews yet to report and the government is proposing legislation regardless.

I didn’t realise until I heard it this morning that they are used with sex offenders. Whereas I think they are probably pretty dubious when it comes to trying to ascertain if a specific person did a certain thing at a certain time it might be that they are a useful additional tool in trying to determine whether someone has changed over a period of time. I wouldn’t therefore dismiss it out of hand.

Wouldn’t dismiss the idea out of hand but don’t lie detectors rely on you having an emotional response to the questions? If so what use are they on a significant proportion of the most dangerous offenders (or city bankers)?

If so what use are they on a significant proportion of the most dangerous offenders (or city bankers)?

In tests exactly as effective as for other people – no better than tossing a coin.

Wouldn’t dismiss the idea out of hand but don’t lie detectors rely on you having an emotional response to the questions?

Can’t say I’ve any idea if they work but I’d guess if it is reliant on emotional response it’s probably easier to spot one by showing various images – say flag burning, beheading, gay marriage, black people not grovelling, women drivers, cyclists without helmets, that sort of thing – and correlating the responses to decide someone is still a nasty piece of work than asking straight up questions like “are you still a terrorist, please answer yes or no “

How do we know that the guy operating the lie detector is telling the truth about the results?

In tests exactly as effective as for other people – no better than tossing a coin.

Well you would say that wouldn’t you.:-)

Is Jeremy Kyle or Trisha going to deliver the results?

“In this envelope I have the results of your lie detector test Dave. Tune in after the break to find out if Dave’s still a flasher!”

For reliability trials I suggest a trial for 2 yrs on this Conservative party.

Then we’ll see who is telling a truth or a version of the truth or indeed a false truth.

should just go with….

and stop the pretense.

For reliability trials I suggest a trial for 2 yrs on this Conservative party.

Then we’ll see who is telling a truth or a version of the truth or indeed a false truth.

I’ll race you, you find an honest politician in any party, I’ll find a pregnant virgin. I’ll even give you a head start.

I’m hoping that this is part of a wider package of tests and reviews before anyone gets released.

Sadly, few prisoners get any sort of adequate rehab before release, the societal issues that push them towards crime don’t get addressed, the support after release isn’t adequate.

A smokescreen about terrorists and lie detectors won’t alter that

It’s all going to back to ‘Prison works’ and the Michael Howard era of Prison reform (aka no reform).

Ironically he was brought down by Anne ‘Something of the night about him’ Widecombe before everyone realised she was a homophobic, racist, pro-Brexit nut job (or at least more of one than your average Tory MP). She almost seemed sensible back then…

None of the announcement goes anywhere near solving the problem, well depending on what you think “the problem” is.

The risk of being the victim of a violent, terrorist crime? Not remotely of interest to this government it would appear.

Daily Mail readers moaning about how we’re too soft on criminals, especially those Muslamic ones? Something must be done! Now there’s a problem we need to, and can, address with ease….

It’s “solving” the problem with “common sense”, and is obviously a political move by a party that thinks it knows have to get people to ignore or accept underfunding by stroking the egos of Daily Mail readers. It probably does.

Yeah they’re really stress detectors not lie detectors so other factors than dishonesty come into play. Certainly not 96% accurate or whatever Jeremy Kyle was stating, that came from a flawed study by one of the trade bodies for the lie detector industry. If they were accurate and cheap to administer I’d see it as a good idea but they aren’t so not sure what good it’s going to do really apart from cost money that might be better spent elsewhere.

I’m hoping that this is part of a wider package of tests and reviews before anyone gets released.

I really don’t understand this reasoning. It’s like saying “I’m hoping that whether Tottenham Hotspur win is part of a wider package of tests and reviews before anyone gets released.” because you are likely to get the same accuracy of answer from both tests.

Surely any forensic test isn’t 100% effective and what you do is to build up a body of evidence based on a broad number of tests and examinations, so I see no reason why a lie detector shouldn’t be part of the portfolio of tests in order to build up a body of evidence. I wouldn’t be keen on any single piece of evidence to be enough to convict someone. We use Phycological profiling routinely and that is just as ‘hocus pocus’ to most of us as lie detectors. It’s just another tool and if it’s backed up by science then there is no sensible reason why they shouldn’t be used. If the scientific evidence doesn’t support them then leave them to Jeremy Kyle.

I see no reason why a lie detector shouldn’t be part of the portfolio of tests in order to build up a body of evidence

Because it’s not evidence. It’s not building up anything. No more than reading tea leaves, ouija boards or an octopus would be.