Abstract
One of the greatest challenges to any Court is to determine the truth in the face of often conflicting evidence. In both the Civil and Criminal Courts, cases stand or fall on what the trier of fact determines is true. In civil cases, this is often a Judge sitting alone, whereas in criminal matters the tribunal of fact is usually a jury. The standard of proof required in criminal cases is “beyond reasonable doubt”. Juries are directed that they can only convict “if they are sure”. The jurors might be sure, but are they correct? There now exists a substantial body of scientific evidence, which indicates that humans are very poor lie detectors. In fact, in some experiments even experienced police officers perform only just above chance. Given this inherent flaw in the system, is it not time to re-evaluate how cases are put before the Courts, and what weight is put on oral testimony.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
