Once called "the strip searches of the mind", polygraph test creators maintain that their lie detectors can detect when a suspect is lying in 80-95% of cases. Should we use them in the justice system to secure convictions? Or are polygraphs a dangerous and gross violation of a suspect's legal rights?
Yes, polygraphs should be allowed in court
Lie detectors are helpful in determining the truthfulness of a subject. Technology should be used to aid in our search for truth.
The illusion of justice is more powerful
Lie-detector tests increase the public faith in the justice system, which creates a more stable, law-abiding society.
Polygraphs are already used in other aspects of law
Polygraph tests have been successfully implemented in other parts of the legal process.
Polygraphs induce confessions
The test itself is not as important as its ability to induce a confession. Making them admissible in court would put increased pressure on a guilty suspect to provide a full confession.
Lie detectors work
Lie detectors can detect falsehoods with an 80-90% accuracy rate.
No, lie detectors should not be admissible in court
Polygraphs are not accurate enough to be used in legal proceedings.
Lie detectors don't work
Lie detectors are not accurate. They are little better than a coin toss.
Lie detectors have an inherent racial bias
Lie detectors are inherently racially biased.
Polygraphs diminish the jury's role
The trial by jury is a bedrock of many Western legal systems. Lie detectors diminish the role of the jury in the legal process.
Polygraphs violate the suspect's right to not self-incriminate
Defendants have the right not to self-incriminate. Lie detectors would infringe on that right.
This page was last edited on Monday, 20 Jan 2020 at 10:11 UTC