You Can\u27t Handle the Truth! Trial Juries and Credibility

Every now and again, we get a look, usually no more than a glimpse, at how the justice system really works. What we see—before the sanitizing curtain is drawn abruptly down—is a process full of human fallibility and error, sometimes noble, more often unfair, rarely evil but frequently unequal. The central question, vital to our adjudicative model, is: How well can we expect a jury to determine credibility through the ordinary adversary processes of live testimony and vigorous impeachment? The answer, from all I have been able to see is: not very well

You Can\u27t Handle the Truth! Trial Juries and Credibility

Every now and again, we get a look, usually no more than a glimpse, at how the justice system really works. What we see—before the sanitizing curtain is drawn abruptly down—is a process full of human fallibility and error, sometimes noble, more often unfair, rarely evil but frequently unequal. The central question, vital to our adjudicative model, is: How well can we expect a jury to determine credibility through the ordinary adversary processes of live testimony and vigorous impeachment? The answer, from all I have been able to see is: not very well

Comparing Australians’ and Americans’ Abilities to Detect Deception across Cultures and Communication Media

The reach of global communication is expanding through the growing availability of smartphones. Smartphones are particularly popular for texting and voice/video calls, and their affordability means that more and more people around the world can now communicate with each other. Yet with the spread of global communication also comes increased exposure to deceptive communication. Can people in one culture accurately detect deception across cultures? And does the communication media they use play a role in their detection accuracy? We attempt to answer these two research questions in a study of Australian and US judges who were asked to detect deception in Australians and Americans, across four different media: full audiovisual, video only, audio only, and text. We found that both Australians and Americans could accurately detect deception at about the same rate across both cultures, and they were better at detection when exposed to full audiovisual stimuli compared to text

A CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON OF COMPUTER-MEDIATED DECEPTIVE COMMUNICATION

Although much research into deceptive communication has been conducted in the last several years, little of it has focused on deception outside of a North American context. Similarly, most deceptive research has investigated face-to-face verbal communication and neglected computer-mediated communication modes. This paper describes a study in progress on deceptive computer-mediated communication, looked at across two national cultures, Spain and the U.S. The paper reviews the relevant literature and theory and presents hypotheses and the research design

Pragmatic and Cultural Considerations for Deception Detection in Asian Languages

In hopes of sparking a discussion, I argue for much needed research on automated deception detection in Asian languages. The task of discerning truthful texts from deceptive ones is challenging, but a logical sequel to opinion mining. I suggest that applied computational linguists pursue broader interdisciplinary research on cultural differences and pragmatic use of language in Asian cultures, before turning to detection methods based on a primarily Western (English-centric) worldview. Deception is fundamentally human, but how do various cultures interpret and judge deceptive behavior