By Taylor Smith, Marketing —
The constitution of the United States has been written to protect the innocent. But, at times it seems that the odds are stacked against them. The innocent, who have been wrongly accused need every opportunity given to them to protect their name. Recently, a man in New Mexico was deemed innocent after a judge accepted a polygraph test as evidence of his innocence. From 2008 to 2010 he had been accused of several sexual assaults over those years. But after solid evidence came forth, in the form of a polygraph, the attitude of the jury changed, and he was acquitted.
Unfortunately, this is not the case in the majority of States. Most states have stringent laws regulating the use of polygraph in any context. Most of those states refuse to allow polygraph as evidence in a court room. But this restriction has its reasons. Polygraph only has between 50 and 60 percent accuracy. In addition, many prosecutors and defenders are unwilling to allow such unreliable evidence into the courtroom when its effects can leave such an impression. Beyond this, though the reliability can vary depending on the judgement, mood, or perceptions of the examiner. This alone can cause anyone to question the validity of a test.
In reality, if there was a non-invasive technology, that was reliable in determining the truth, and if the purpose of the justice was to determine what that truth was, then it would follow that that technology would be welcome in a court of law.
Cue: EyeDetect. This is a non-invasive technology. In addition it has proven over 90 percent reliable in determining the truth accurately. Rather than relying on an examiner, the technology uses a developed algorithm to determine truth. This in itself removes the many variations of an actual examiner. The potential applications for its use in the courtroom are many. This includes testing Police Officers to determine if evidence was gathered legally. To test witnesses to determine how valid their testimony is. To test the jury to determine that they will indeed be unbiased going into a case. Not to mention testing plaintiffs and defendants to determine their honesty.