does anyone know the stats on how much it is used during trials and things? as far as i know, the polygraph test is supposed to be very accurate. i'm not saying that it should be used as complete proof of someone's innocence or guilt but wouldn't it make sense to use that as another form of evidence?
2006-11-17 07:50:42 · 9 answers · asked by tom l 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
sorry, i meant......."....more widely than it is IN trials?"
2006-11-17 07:52:11 · update #1
because it isn't 100% accurate.
2006-11-19 06:09:25 · answer #1 · answered by nicekrngirl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they aren't that accurate. There are ZERO licensing requirements and absolutely NObody regulates who reads them. That means there is no training either. The machine doens't just say "lie" or "truth". That determination is left entirely how the polygraph reader reads the maching. And then anybody with the funds can obtain a polygraph, and viola, they are a polygraph reader with the authority to go on Maury Povich and help to ruin lives.
2006-11-17 07:54:28 · answer #2 · answered by Manny 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Polygraph tests are NOT admissable in court. Polygraphs, though mostly accurate, do not work on certain people. Drunks, drug users, mentally unstable persons (sociopath, psychopath etc), to name a few. Polygraphs are generally used by law enforcment to help eliminate potential suspects, though it cannot be used as evidence for warrants or in the courtroom
2006-11-17 07:55:20 · answer #3 · answered by BigEasy 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
specific, the protection rigidity makes use of polygraph attempting out. it somewhat is only for specific clearance get admission to stages and assignments and maximum service participants isn't project to one. A astounding secret clearance does no longer require a polygraph.
2016-12-10 10:55:53 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would HATE being hooked up to that freaky lookin suction-cup and needle thing so....
I would fail the part where they asked me my name!
Then under the Military Commissions Act they would declare all my documents false, since I'm obviously NOT Ian Montgomery. These documents would no longer count as proof of my citizenship (of course, they're false) and I would be detained without habeas corpus.
In effect, I would *disappear* to the rest of the world. The date of my disappearance would mark my death to the rest of the world, but I would only wish it had truly been my death -- after months of torture for information which I would obviously not have.
2006-11-17 08:05:11 · answer #5 · answered by A Box of Signs 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the polygraph doesn't work. people can have physiological reactions to questions for a number of reasons. they may be lying, but can have the same reaction if they are angry, scared, surprised, etc. no machine can read peoples emotions
2006-11-17 08:01:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are not used in trials because they are not 100% accurate. They can be inconclusive and people with no conscience can pass them even if they are guilty.
2006-11-17 07:54:25 · answer #7 · answered by JC 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
because they're flawed and can incorrectly influnce a jury. A person can lie without it showing up on the system, esp if they're a sociopath, and if you're really nervious you can be telling the truth but it looks like a lie.
2006-11-17 07:54:16 · answer #8 · answered by smm 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are not reliable. An extremely nervous person might register as lying when he gave his correct name and a psycho could say he jumped over the moon and it would register as the truth.
2006-11-17 08:11:01 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋