The illusion of justice is more powerful

The argument

The argument concedes the technical objection at the outset and argues that it is not decisive. Lie detectors give the public comfort that wrongdoers who lie will not get away with their crimes, and on this account that comfort is itself a social good, produced whether or not the instrument measures what it claims to measure. Even if the lie detectors are flawed, they offer a sense of trust in the process, and that trust increases the public's faith in the legal system. The reasoning rests on what a justice system has to deliver. Alongside accurate verdicts it must sustain the belief that wrongdoing is detected and answered for; without that belief, people stop regarding the institution as working on their behalf. If the public sees suspected criminals being put behind bars for their wrongdoings through the use of lie detector tests, they are more likely to be reassured that justice has been served — and the reassurance comes from the visible procedure, which members of the public can observe, rather than from underlying reliability, which they cannot assess either way. The benefit claimed from that reassurance is order. A population that believes the system works is a population that brings its grievances to the system, which is beneficial to the creation of a peaceful society and promotes stability. The alternative — a widespread suspicion that the guilty are simply not caught — corrodes the confidence on which voluntary compliance depends. Therefore lie detectors, even if they are inaccurate and flawed, can promote societal stability and faith in the justice system. On this argument the value of admitting them lies in that effect rather than in their precision, and it is sufficient reason for them to be admissible in court.

Context

The appearance of justice is essential to the justice system’s function. If people feel like wrongdoers will face penalties for their crimes, criminals think twice about offending, and victims do not live in a state of perpetual fear of crime. Ultimately, the appearance of justice is what keeps crimes low and contributes to the stability of a society, not the actual administration of justice. If people have faith in the system, they do not take matters into their own hands and they do not behave in a lawless manner.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The goal of the justice system is not to create the “illusion” of justice to deter and placate the public. Its purpose is to actually serve justice by punishing the guilty and protecting the innocent. Anything that does not contribute to these goals has no place in the legal system. Lie detectors have a very real possibility of leading to the punishment of the innocent. Therefore, it has no place in the legal system.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P3] The role of the justice system is not to administer the illusion of justice to increase public faith. It is to administer "real" justice by punishing wrongdoers and protecting the innocent. Lie detector tests do not help achieve these objectives. Therefore, they should not be admissible in court.