By 張倍齊 Pei-Chi Chang
Script 閱讀文本
Can Polygraph Test Results Be Used as Evidence?
Here, I would like to share with you about the role and challenges of lie detection results in judicial practice. Lie detection, as a common investigative tool, has long been controversial regarding whether its results can be admissible as evidence. Today, we will delve into this issue. Firstly, let’s understand the basic principles of lie detection. It is based on the assumption that when people perceive external stimuli, they generate emotional reactions and physiological changes. By recording these physiological responses, one can assess the psychological state of the examinee and determine whether they are lying. However, lie detection records only physiological responses and cannot directly discern one’s thoughts, posing challenges to its application in judicial practice.
In criminal cases, courts approach lie detection results with caution. While lie detection may provide indirect evidence, its lack of scientific reproducibility and susceptibility to other factors often lead courts to regard it as corroborative rather than conclusive evidence. Recently, the judiciary has explicitly stated that lie detection results cannot be used as evidence to establish criminal facts, reflecting skepticism about the reliability of lie detection.
In civil litigation, lie detection is even less considered as a substitute for evidence. Courts believe that facts should be established through evidentiary activities and allocation of responsibilities rather than relying on lie detection results. Therefore, courts often do not allow lie detection applications in civil litigation and emphasize the importance of evidentiary activities.
In medical litigation, although there may be a need for lie detection at times, courts similarly adopt a cautious approach. Courts prefer to judge issues such as whether medical professionals have fulfilled their duty to inform through other means rather than relying on lie detection results.
In summary, lie detection results face certain limitations and challenges in judicial practice. Courts do not overly rely on lie detection results but rather prioritize other evidence and evidentiary activities. Therefore, we need to approach the role of lie detection rationally and appropriately apply its results in judicial practice.
Translation 中文翻譯
在這裡和各位分享關於測謊結果在司法實務中的角色與挑戰。測謊，作為一種常見的調查手段，其所得結果是否可以作為證據一直是受到爭議的問題。今天，我們將就這一問題進行探討。
首先，我們先了解一下測謊的基本原理。測謊是基於假設，即當人對外部刺激有所感知時，會產生情緒反應和生理變化。透過記錄這些生理反應，可以評估受測者的心理狀態，從而判斷其是否在說謊。然而，測謊所記錄的僅僅是生理反應，並不能直接洞察人心，這就為其在司法實務中的應用帶來了挑戰。
在刑事案件中，法院對於測謊結果持謹慎的態度。雖然測謊可以提供一些間接證據，但由於其不具備科學再現性，容易受到其他因素的影響，因此法院往往將其作為參考而非決定性證據。近來，司法院更是明確指出測謊結果不得作為認定犯罪事實的證據，這反映出了對於測謊可靠性的質疑。
在民事訴訟中，測謊更不被視為可替代舉證的手段。法院認為應該透過舉證活動和責任分配來確定事實，而不是依賴測謊結果。因此，在民事訴訟中，法院往往不准許測謊聲請，並更加強調舉證活動的重要性。
而在醫療訴訟中，雖然有時候會有對於測謊的需求，但法院同樣對其持謹慎態度。對於醫方是否盡到告知說明義務等問題，法院更願意通過其他方式進行判斷，而非依賴測謊結果。
總的來說，測謊結果在司法實務中的應用存在著一定的限制和挑戰。法院不會過度依賴測謊結果，而是更加重視其他證據和舉證活動。因此，我們需要理性看待測謊的角色，並在司法實務中適當地應用其結果。
CHECK THIS OUT 學習知識點
‘Courts similarly adopt a cautious approach.’
Here we use the word ‘adopt’. The normal meaning of this verb is to take someone else’s child as your own, but it also has other meanings and uses. The most common meaning of adopt, is ‘to use’. We very often use this verb together with the noun ‘approach’, so we can say these two words are a collocation that you should learn and use.
「法院同樣採取謹慎的態度。」
這裡我們用「adopt 領養」這個字，這個字的一般意思是把別人的孩子當作自己的孩子，但它也有其他的意思和用法，最常見的是「使用」。我們經常將此動詞和名詞 “approach” 連用，所以我們可以說這兩個詞是一個你應該學習和使用的搭配。
