SUBMITTED BY: CH.

NIHARIKA
VU22LAWS0200043 [Link] [Hons] SEMESTER-4
UNDER THE ESTEEMED GUIDANCE OF DIMPLE PHANCHAL
DECLARATION

I declare hereby titled ‘lie detection ’ submitted by me to GITAM School of Law, GITAM
Deemed to be University, Visakhapatnam, is a bona fide report carried out under the guidance
of Dimple panchal . I further declare that work in this report has not been submitted nor will
ever be submitted elsewhere.

Place: Visakhapatnam
Signature of student: [Link]
Date:13-10-2023
CH. NIHARIKA
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I want to express my sincere gratitude towards my Family law Professor. Dimple panchal for
guiding and providing me with valuable suggestions and constructive criticism. I want to
thank you from the bottom of my heart for motivating and encouraging in all my endeavours.
I would further like to express my sincere gratitude to The Director, Prof. Dr. Anita Rao, and
my university GITAM School of Law, for giving me the opportunity.

Name of the Student: CH. NIHARIKA

INTRODUCTION
Even the earliest legal systems had techniques for detecting lies. For example, in an ancient
form of trial by
Ordeal, a suspect who denied committing a crime was required to plunge his arm into a pot of
boiling water
And pull out a stone. The arm was then bandaged. If, after 3 days, the burns were not
infected, the person was
Judged to be telling the truth (Hans & Vidmar, 1986).

➢ The theory was that God would intervene on behalf of an innocent person and reveal the
truth by preventing
Infection. The legal system no longer relies on divine intervention to reveal liars. However,
people working on
Behalf of the legal system (i.e., police, lawyers, jurors, judges) often rely on their own eyes,
ears, and intuitions
To catch liars. Therefore, our ability to tell lies and our ability to tell when other people are
lying is something
That must be studied in detail.
Everyone is a liar/Why do people lie?

➢ Deception is an essential lubricant of social interaction.

Evidence:
▪ The world is full of lies. In one study, pairs of college students were asked to get to know
each other, while
Being secretly videotaped (Feldman et al., 2002).
▪ One member of the pair then reviewed the videotape and indicated the points at which he or
she had deceived
The interaction partner.
▪ In this brief encounter (about 10 minutes), students admitted to telling, on average, 2.9 lies.
▪ Some of the lies were complete fabrications, but most were little lies — for example,
exaggerations aimed at
Making oneself appear more impressive, or misleading behaviors designed to make the
interaction partner feel
Good (e.g., feigning interest in a boring topic).
▪ And lying extends beyond face-to-face interactions — strong majorities of young adults
admit to lying while
Texting, sexting, and creating online dating profiles (Drouin et al., 2018; Toma et al., 2018)
Lying is adaptive — it promotes survival.
Evidence:
▪ From an evolutionary perspective, For example, when chimpanzees want access to more
food, they
Sometimes falsely call out an alarm signaling that a predator is near. When the other
members of the
Troop run away in response to the false alarm, the deceptive chimp is temporarily left alone
with the food
(Hall & Brosnan, 2017).
▪ One great evolutionary advantage that we humans have over many other species is our
ability to work
And hunt together in cooperative, coordinated groups. It has been argued that our facility at
bending,
Reshaping, spinning, and shading the truth is what enables relatively harmonious group
interaction.
▪ Our capacity to deceive is a fundamental part of human nature, and it makes the detection of
lies less
Straightforward than is commonly supposed.

➢ Lying is not only ubiquitous, it is also multifaceted.

Evidence:
▪ The varied words for deception convey something about its complexity. We can lie, mislead,
misinform,
Trick, fake, betray, fool, cheat, con, confabulate, delude, dupe, dissemble, deceive, distort,
fabricate,
Exaggerate, prevaricate, pretend, distort, feign, falsify, or misrepresent. We can be
inauthentic,
Disingenuous, or downright mendacious. Each of these words conveys a slightly different
shade of
Meaning, though all imply a bending or violation of the truth.
▪ In addition, there are lies of commission (saying something that is not true) and lies of
omission (leaving
Out crucial details that might reveal the truth). There are well-rehearsed lies and spontaneous
lies. There
Are lies told to help others and lies told to hurt others, as well as lies told to help ourselves at
the expense Of others. We may lie about our past experiences or our future plans.
There are lies we feel justified in telling and those we feel guilty about telling. Sometimes we
Unintentionally give a false account of past events because we were not paying full attention
to what Happened or because our memories are sketchy or wrong. Bella DePaulo, a well-
known expert on lying And lie detection, puts it this way: “Lying is just so ordinary, so much
a part of our everyday lives and Everyday conversations that we hardly notice it. And in
many cases, it would be more difficult, Challenging, and stressful for people to tell the truth
than to lie” (Henig, 2006, p. 11).
Can we detect Lie?
Premise:
▪ When a case goes to trial, jurors must decide whether a particular witness is lying or being
truthful. Courts in the United States have expressed great confidence in the ability of jurors to
detect lies by Carefully observing each witness’s “manner of testifying” and “demeanor on
the witness stand”.
▪ Part of a police interrogator’s job is to act as a sort of human lie detector — to scrutinize the
suspect’s Nonverbal behavior, to look for inconsistencies in the suspect’s story, and to decide
whether the suspect is Telling the truth.
Dilemma:
▪ Is the legal system’s faith in the lie-detection abilities of jurors and interrogators misplaced?
Researchers Have examined human lie-detection abilities in hundreds of studies. Is it a
reliable method? Is it objective
Enough? Or is everything black and white?
The argument:
▪ Researchers have examined human lie-detection abilities in hundreds of studies. In most of
these studies,
Participants view videotapes of people telling either the truth or a verifiable lie.
▪ Participants typically view a large number of such videos and classify them as either
truthful or Deceptive.

▪ Because there are only two choices — lie or truth — the chance rate of accuracy is 50%.
Put differently,

You could get a score of 50% correct by simply flipping a coin and using a rule such as
“heads, it’s a lie;
Tails, it’s the truth.”
▪ In 2006, Charles Bond and Bella DePaulo statistically synthesized the results from 384
research studies
That tested the lie-detecting powers of more than 24,000 people.
Their findings were as follows:

❖ People can do better than chance in distinguishing truth from lies, but not by much. The
overall rate of
Accuracy was 54%.

❖ When the liars had time to plan out and rehearse their lies (as is almost always the case in
legal settings),
Their lies were slightly harder to detect, and if observers were able to compare the same
person lying and
Telling the truth, they were slightly better able to recognize the lie. However, such
advantageous and
Disadvantageous conditions moved accuracy rates up or down only by about 2%.
What about police officers?
▪ Perhaps police officers are better at noticing lies that the rest of us miss. After all, police
have extensive
Experience with criminals who lie about their involvement in crimes. Maybe this experience
gives them
An edge at lie detection.
The study and the result:
▪ In one study, prison inmates gave true and false videotaped confessions to crimes they did
or did not
Commit (Kassin et al., 2005). Next, police detectives and college students judged the
truthfulness of each
Confession.
▪ Although college students performed slightly better than chance at distinguishing true from
false

Confessions, police detectives did not. Another interesting difference was that detectives were
Significantly more confident about the accuracy of their judgments.
▪ That is, even though detectives were wrong more often than students, detectives were more
confident That they were right. Detectives also showed a bias toward judging false
confessions as true. And the Tendency of detectives to infer guilt increased with their job
experience and interrogation training.
The final problem?
▪ A serious problem may arise from the training itself. Interrogators are trained to “read”
verbal and Nonverbal behavior as a means of determining whether a suspect is lying.
▪ This training may increase confidence in lie-detection skills without increasing the ability to
differentiate Truth from deception.
▪ Unfortunately, the behavioral cues interrogators are taught to focus on (crossing legs,
shifting and Fidgeting, grooming gestures, avoiding eye contact) are flawed indicators of
deception.
▪ In experiments using actual interrogation training videos, training does not improve the
ability to detect Lies. It does, however, make people more confident about their judgments
and cause them to list more Reasons for their judgments Because interrogators may believe
that a suspect is behaving in ways that indicate guilt, they may subject An innocent suspect to
a high-pressure, psychologically coercive interrogation. Then, if the suspect falsely
Confesses, interrogators may view the confession as confirming their initial presumption of
guilt and as
Justifying the use of questionable interrogation tactics.
▪ Flawed interpretation of a suspect’s verbal and nonverbal behavior is likely to fuel a
phenomenon called Confirmation bias (Kassin et al., 2013; Meissner & Kassin, 2004). Scores
of research studies demonstrate That once we form a strong belief, we tend to seek out
evidence that confirms that belief and to dismiss Evidence that contradicts that belief. A
strong belief that a suspect is guilty may trigger confirmation bias And make the investigator
prone to interpreting the suspect’s behavior as evidence of deception and guilt
(particularly ambiguous behavior such as nervous fidgeting, averted gaze, and anxious facial
Expressions).
BIBLOGRAPHY
[Link]
detection#:~:text=Lie%20detection%20is%20based%20on,questioned%20by%20a
%20trained%20examiner