Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Lie detector on Jeremy Kyle... ?

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    This is probably a really stupid question but...

    You know when do lie detectors are done on The Jeremy Kyle Show? Why will they never do it if theres "violence in the relationship"?

    I've wondered for ages. LOL
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JOSH-L)
    This is probably a really stupid question but...

    You know when do lie detectors are done on The Jeremy Kyle Show? Why will they never do it if theres "violence in the relationship"?

    I've wondered for ages. LOL
    i've wondered this aswell !! :p:

    i have no idea...
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    lol Jeremy Kyle.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Perhaps because they think it may interfere with a criminal investigation?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Perhaps because they think it may interfere with a criminal investigation?
    :rofl:

    The real question is why the contestants actually alter their lives in the most fundamental of ways on the basis of what a lie detector says.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I think lie detector results are inadmissable in court. Usually becasue it is essentially up to someone to decide if you are lying or not. And our legal system says you need at least 12 people to decide whether you are lying or not.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ascient)
    :rofl:

    The real question is why the contestants actually alter their lives in the most fundamental of ways on the basis of what a lie detector says.
    Who cares? People just watch it to laugh at plebs. As far as I'm concerned, "Graham" might as well throw them all into a big pit and cover it over after every episode.

    Incidentally, I like your use of the word "contestants" to describe the participants. Maybe they should start issuing prizes for those who haven't adulterated, impregnated and flagellated.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JayB124)
    I think lie detector results are inadmissable in court.
    Yes. They are getting a bit of a resurgence in terms of respectability these days: sure, they're only accurate most of the time, but there have been suggestions that they're actually more accurate than the typical witness statement.

    There are just too many practical problems with implementing the technology as a proper legal device however. Plus, philosophically, it's a bit dodgy.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Who cares? People just watch it to laugh at plebs. As far as I'm concerned, "Graham" might as well throw them all into a big pit and cover it over after every episode.
    Before diving in after them? In which case, I'd be inclined to agree. It's also the most blatant case of the blind leading the blind as well. Jeremy Kyle, who's an ill mannered moron with a failed marriage, giving people advice on...manners and marriage? :unsure:

    Incidentally, I like your use of the word "contestants" to describe the participants. Maybe they should start issuing prizes for those who haven't adulterated, impregnated and flagellated.
    :rofl: I didn't even realise I did that :o: The subconscious at work, I guess.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Who cares? People just watch it to laugh at plebs. As far as I'm concerned, "Graham" might as well throw them all into a big pit and cover it over after every episode.

    Incidentally, I like your use of the word "contestants" to describe the participants. Maybe they should start issuing prizes for those who haven't adulterated, impregnated and flagellated.
    They're ALL ugly as well! haha - how do they manage to find people who will take part in reproductive activities with them?! LOL.

    I think their should be a prize for finding some poor, deluded, toothless, wierd-haired chav who will shag them, atleast!! :P

    Oh - Still... Anyone with any ideas why they dont use lie detectors on people in violent relationships? Its buggin me.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ascient)
    Before diving in after them? In which case, I'd be inclined to agree. It's also the most blatant case of the blind leading the blind as well. Jeremy Kyle, who's an ill mannered moron with a failed marriage, giving people advice on...manners and marriage? :unsure:
    Not to mention his gambling addiction!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I didn't even know about the addiction, dear me!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JOSH-L)
    They're ALL ugly as well! haha - how do they manage to find people who will take part in reproductive activities with them?! LOL.
    It's not hard to find someone to shag. What's slightly more difficult is finding someone who won't get you pregnant and leave/sleep with your best friend and your mum/punch you in the face/etc etc. If you had standards as low as these people apparently do, even having the head of a pig wouldn't prevent you getting laid.

    I can't watch Jeremy Kyle anymore. The people make me too annoyed. The amount of women who are basically saying, "Yeah, he kicks me about a bit, but he didn't leave when I was pregnant! He's a great bloke!" or men who don't care if their girlfriends assaulted a girl who flirted with him, so long as that slag didn't look at another bloke just makes me so depressed.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joanna May)
    It's not hard to find someone to shag. What's slightly more difficult is finding someone who won't get you pregnant and leave/sleep with your best friend and your mum/punch you in the face/etc etc. If you had standards as low as these people apparently do, even having the head of a pig wouldn't prevent you getting laid.
    You've got a good point! Altho, having read some of the threads in the H&R forum, people fancying animals isnt as rare as I first thought :O

    Did you ever see those 2 mingers on Harry Enfield and Chums? EVERYONE who appears on J.K. looks like them! LOL

    But I digress... heheh :P
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joanna May)
    I can't watch Jeremy Kyle anymore. The people make me too annoyed. The amount of women who are basically saying, "Yeah, he kicks me about a bit, but he didn't leave when I was pregnant! He's a great bloke!" or men who don't care if their girlfriends assaulted a girl who flirted with him, so long as that slag didn't look at another bloke just makes me so depressed.
    I just take the mick throughout. If I didnt, like you I'd just get depressed. I love to make fun... I'd be exactly the same if I didnt make fun when I watch the news.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The polygraph thing on his show always annoys me. If you watch, it's blatantly obvious a lot of the time that the verdict's already been decided. If they're likely to be innocent and the polygraph confirms it, all well and good. But if Jeremy and the audience think he's done it, like in one episode I watched recently, there were three options:

    "Polygraph said you were... lying, you disgusting piece of filth!"

    And if the person swears blind they didn't do it then you get the sarcy "Oh, and I suppose you think that you're one of those special 4% that gets a false negative do you? Liar!"

    "Polygraph was... INCONCLUSIVE. This means you didn't show enough reaction either way to make a judgement. So therefore you were probably lying and covering it, you disgusting piece of filth!"

    "Polygraph said you were... telling the truth, isn't that interesting? But we all know you're lying about it, this must be one of those times in the top 4% that slips through!"

    I couldn't believe the double standards in place there.
    • 31 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Jeremy Kyle is comedy gold. He should get an award of some sort.

    He brings some scummy, dirty, wierd, disgusting, offensive, dispicable people onto his show. He asks them their side, interrupts them, shouts at them and then brings on Graham to wrap things up.

    Oh yeah and his "boot camp" is a joke.
    Spending a day in the country walking and doing a few menial tasks, boot camp my rear end.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Jeremy Kyle is comedy gold. He should get an award of some sort.

    He brings some scummy, dirty, wierd, disgusting, offensive, dispicable people onto his show. He asks them their side, interrupts them, shouts at them and then brings on Graham to wrap things up.
    That is precisely why I love the show. Watching Jeremy Kyle loudly informing people that they're worthless just never gets old.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Maybe because violence can cover a lot of forms and varies in severity so some things aren't deemed a "leaveable" offence?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Perhaps because they think it may interfere with a criminal investigation?
    This^

    For legal reasons, the jury might watch the show and be influenced if there is any criminality involved. Since it will almost certainly air before court proceedings there's a chance that they may hire someone who is prejudiced before the trial starts.

    You can't use a lie detector as evidence in a court of law (as it is not reliable enough), simply that I suspect.

    There is little scientific evidence to support the reliability of polygraphs.[16][17] Despite claims of 90% - 95% reliability, critics charge that rather than a "test", the method amounts to an inherently unstandardizable interrogation technique whose accuracy cannot be established. A 1997 survey of 421 psychologists estimated the test's average accuracy at about 61%, a little better than chance.[18] Critics also argue that even given high estimates of the polygraph's accuracy a significant number of subjects (e.g. 10% given a 90% accuracy) will appear to be lying, and would unfairly suffer the consequences of "failing" the polygraph. In the 1998 Supreme Court case, United States v. Scheffer, the majority stated that "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable" and "Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion..."[19] Also, in 2005 the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals stated that “polygraphy did not enjoy general acceptance from the scientific community”.[20] Charles Honts, a psychology professor at Boise State University, states that polygraph interrogations give a high rate of false positives on innocent people.[21] In 2001 William G. Iacono, Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience and Director, Clinical Science and Psychopathology Research Training Program at the University of Minnesota, published a paper titled “Forensic “Lie Detection": Procedures Without Scientific Basis” in the peer reviewed Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice. He concluded that

    Although the CQT [Control Question Test] may be useful as an investigative aid and tool to induce confessions, it does not pass muster as a scientifically credible test. CQT theory is based on naive, implausible assumptions indicating (a) that it is biased against innocent individuals and (b) that it can be beaten simply by artificially augmenting responses to control questions. Although it is not possible to adequately assess the error rate of the CQT, both of these conclusions are supported by published research findings in the best social science journals (Honts et al., 1994; Horvath, 1977; Kleinmuntz & Szucko, 1984; Patrick & Iacono, 1991). Although defense attorneys often attempt to have the results of friendly CQTs admitted as evidence in court, there is no evidence supporting their validity and ample reason to doubt it. Members of scientific organizations who have the requisite background to evaluate the CQT are overwhelmingly skeptical of the claims made by polygraph proponents. [22]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph

    The show is liable should any criminality or proceedings result from any test, polygraph, psychological or otherwise that indicate a criminal activity, it is stressed therefore that anything that is considered illegal, such as violence, rape etc not be tested by such means or the results not aired, issues that have no chance of legal proceedings are exempt. However discretion should be taken in cases that could lead to possible criminality in the future.

    Probably this clause in the TV producers standards code. I made that up by the way but there's probably something out there like it.
Updated: April 29, 2009
New on TSR

Find out what year 11 is like

Going into year 11? Students who did it last year share what to expect.

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.