Convicted Of Rape, Died In Prison, Then Cleared

[IanKennedy]

Yes, but if you ask and they don't seem to be lying and they say that the did it how can you be sure they aren't just confusing themselves? So you could get, say, five people who seem to be guilty. Which one is going to go to jail?

Lather, rinse, repeat.

The odds of the test coming out inconclusive once may be high, but how about after five tests, or ten? All five suspects coming up as guilty after ten tests each? Time to go back over the evidence, and adjust your questioning to include the possibility of multiple people being involved. If they are all involved, the less involved will quickly turn on the others to avoid the noose.

At which point, another round of testing begins.

For me, it's not about saving the money, it's about the money not being spent to keep a true child murderer/serial killer alive in relative comfort. I'd much rather spend millions more making sure the right people are shown to the gallows than save money keeping people alive who really don't need to be.

Doesn't seen to solve the problem of the mentally ill sort of people that openly admit to committing crimes they didn't do, because they believe that the did commit them. Your machine will tell you that they are guilty and not lying about it, and yet common sense tells you they are incapable of doing it. The moment that gets into the court there goes a conviction for anyone. If you don't do the test then the defense will, basically you've invented a machine for getting people off any crime you use it for, so long as you can find someone who truly believes that they did it and is willing to admit it.

[Tsukiyumi]

If there were no possible way both of them did it (let's say 'killed a kid', as the example crime), and no way to prove which person did it using that technology (along with the other evidence), then the death penalty would be off the table.

I'm not advocating an all-or-nothing system.