Should judges have to take a profiling course so to be able to tell if

someone is lying or trying to decieve the court? Just came to mind after seeing so many tv shows on profiling and the ability to watch body language so closely that you can tell if a person is lying.So I thought would it be useful in a court of law, for maybe the judge?

What do you think?

View Image

thought it was self explanatory......and how is your post relevant or helpful?

Just tired I guess.

Fair enough, so do you have any thoughts on the matter I just thought it would be fun to explore.

Not sure right now.

that is why we have evidence, to show whether the defendant is lying or not.

You have the right idea, mark. Our juducial system is based on evidence, not opinion. A judges opinion is not wanted. His impartial review of the facts is. A fair and impartial trial based on presentation of evidence could not happen if this were so.

I work as a legal consultant and have two degrees. I can tell you that it is not like it is on tv. Yes, I might be able to help select a jury based on their body language, and stuff like that but it is not an exact science.

You might ask 5 body language experts a question and 3 might give one answer and 2 give another answer. I can say it is my professional opinion as I do but it is just my opinion.

In court they need facts, they need evidence. People can give an opinion of crime scenes but again, an opinion. A judge cannot allow someone to go to jail out of a professional opinion.

It's not the judge who makes the verdict anyway but the Jury. There is a reason they are not trained in anything legal. They should be impartial and purely go on evidence as others have stated.

You can select to have a judge only trial.

In my opinion of dealing with juries, most are not a jury of your peers. I don't mean to sound rude but most people on a jury do not have the intelligence to comprehend certain things like DNA, etc.

I think those serving on a jury should be educated with legal knowledge, understanding of the legal system, etc.

The only reason clients like them is because they don't have legal knowledge and you can get a hung jury if one person feels bad for you.

Judges know the law and what what evidence matters and what does not. I would like us to get away with jury trials, my personal opinion.

Professionally, I like it because you can fool them. You can cast doubt in their minds. It only takes one hold out.

Yes, I might be able to help select a jury based on their body language, and stuff like that but it is not an exact science...Yet profiles of "criminals" are still based around this ..
..I think that this is a "Cracker" of a Point raised by the OP...Congrats to Unicorn
...Should "profiling" in any exent be used in a Court of Law...and should the Judges be academically "versed" in this technique...have to go away and think about this... Thanks Unicorn..that is defo "food for thought"...been a long time since I had that on TFS

Your welcome Like I said in the op was just wondering after watching so many profile based shows...thanks for adding the extra food for thought

If I were to write up a profile, it would be my opinion based on certain factors. One needs to look at the crime scene, etc. Then based on what we see, we can come up with a profile. It is a guideline only. It is not an exact science and it can be wrong. That is why it's a guideline.

Profiling is not like Criminal Minds, though I love the show. We are not right all the time and just because someone fits a profile does not mean they did it and does not mean they will be arrested. It is a tool for the police to use.

I saw this program too. Interesting that they couldn't make a definitiative call on Corby - at least, one they were willing to do so on air.

I do know some people who knew Seth Gonsalez & his family and from what I heard about his behaviour espec after the murders, the profiler was right on the money. Gonzales did enjoy the 'game' aspect of getting away with it - in fact, from what I heard, he was ecstatic with joy afterwards. So that gave the segment & the profiling more credibility for me. He mentioned some things that IMO he could not have found when googling.

If I were a judge I'd be intrigued to learn these skills, but I'd be hesitant to employ them or refer to them unless I was 99% comfortable I was an expert. Sending someone to jail for life because of a lip curl or a shoulder switch is a massive call, of course. However, these signs, coupled with less clarity around circumstantial evidence might be helpful.

Great thread topic.