Amazon.com Widgets
  • Polygraphs are a necessity in court.

    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 should be admissible

    Lying induces a similar response that activates the autonomic nervous system. Even if you try to control these factors as much as possible, The polygraph instrument will capture the small movements in your breathing, Heart rate, Arm/leg movement, And sweat glands, Those of which may be unnoticeable to the suspect and can't be controlled.

    When the stakes and consequences are higher, Such as in court, The polygraph will have an even higher accuracy level. It is the human body's natural response to trigger the "fight-and-flight" response when confronted with a question where they have to conceal something they have a memory of.

    Although many articles on the internet claim that countermeasures reduce the accuracy, The computerized algorithms in the scoring system and the advent of new sensors and technology are constantly evolving to combat these countermeasures. Without rigorous training and practice in counter measures, Most of these "tricks" are well known to examiners and the algorithms are designed to detect them.

    Many studies have been conducted where the test subjects are asked to steal money, Or commit some other crime. It was up to the polygraph examiner to determine which of the subject committed the crime. In many of these studies, The examiner was accurately able to detect which of the subjects committed the crimes and which were innocent. Other independent studies have shown that the polygraph is about 87-92% accurate.

    Polygraphs should be admissible because they may be the only piece of evidence in certain cases where an innocent suspect's memory may be the only piece of exculpatory evidence they have. On the contrary, A guilty person may be able to get away by creating reasonable doubt, Hiring effective legal counsel, And getting other evidence suppressed, And the polygraph will expose the truth.

    In many cases, The polygraph may be the only way to achieve retributive justice for the victim of crimes, And to exonerate innocent people.

    Polygraph testimony should be admissible when the polygraph examiner is reputable, The questions are worded properly, And all protocols are followed. The exam should be video taped so that any third party can verify the protocols and graph results. To increase a suspect or witness' credibility, They could take a polygraph exam from two different examiners to show that it wasn't a one-time fluke that they got a certain result nor was it a specific examiner's bias. Of course, The polygraph results shouldn't be the only factor in determining guilt or innocence, But the polygraph results, In combination with any other piece of exculpatory or inculpatory evidence, Should be suffice and yield high accuracy in court verdicts.

  • Polygraphs are not real

    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.

  • Polygraphs can be cheated.

    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.

  • No, not as of yet.

    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.

  • No, They Shouldn't

    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.

  • They can not be trusted

    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.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.