The use of polygraphs would make it easier to determine if someone is guilty or not. According to experts polygraphs are accurate 90% of the time. Most the people on the "Say No" side of the page are just making up stuff instead of checking reliable sources. I do not think that polygraphs should be used in court, but I enjoy being the "devil's advocate."
Polygraphs are just mere illusions that are provided by the police that actually rules the world along with the Free Masons, Illuminati and ISIL. The world is fake, it is, was and will never be real. Our eyes just depict the world as we want it to be, with friends and family which are just allegories that are played with our minds in order to make us believe that the reality is even real at all.
Yes, fooling a polygraph may be difficult, but not impossible. Lying may be second nature to someone with no training. Polygraph's can also give false positives due to the person being nervous, or having the hiccups. Polygraphs are not infallible. They cannot accurately indicate whether a person is lying or not, so they should not be admissible.
I do not think polygraphs should be admissible in court as of yet. Polygraph tests are complex and need to be done in a specific way. Their can't be compound questions. You need seperate tests for each topic. Not every person administering these tests do this properly, and that's a problem.
I do not believe polygraph tests should be admissible in court. I think these tests are very unreliable. For me, a person with anxiety, I would probably trigger the thing multiple times while telling the truth. I do not believe these machines are reliable enough to use in a court setting.
Polygraph tests are possible to cheat on with the right practice and training, and so do not constitute solid evidence that juries need to convict people to jail or death. They can be useful in police investigations, but not as solid proof in which to decide something beyond a reasonable doubt.