This has bothered me on and off over the years. While I don’t have the expertise to debate the reliability of lie detector tests in any way, it troubles me how they can work both for and against someone that is suspect in a case.

If a murder suspect is offered a lie detector test which they then pass, they are usually still considered a suspect as “lie detector tests aren’t reliable”.

If the same suspect refuses to take a lie detector test because “they are unreliable” it is often used against them with the attitude of “well, why are they afraid to take the test of they have nothing to hide?”

There are of course different variations on this, but I think my point is clear. No matter what, once the term “lie detector test” is uttered, both the guilty and the innocent are basically damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Just seems kind of messed up to me.

The ones that get me (although I don’t really remember any such cases off the top of my head from UM) are the ones where a suspect passes a polygraph the first time and the police give him/her a second one which they fail.

If the person passes once, why do they need another go-round? It makes me wonder if some authorities have a suspect or theory in mind from the outset and just keep polygraphing this person until they get a result that fits their preferred narrative.

This has bothered me on and off over the years. While I don’t have the expertise to debate the reliability of lie detector tests in any way, it troubles me how they can work both for and against someone that is suspect in a case.

If a murder suspect is offered a lie detector test which they then pass, they are usually still considered a suspect as “lie detector tests aren’t reliable”.

If the same suspect refuses to take a lie detector test because “they are unreliable” it is often used against them with the attitude of “well, why are they afraid to take the test of they have nothing to hide?”

There are of course different variations on this, but I think my point is clear. No matter what, once the term “lie detector test” is uttered, both the guilty and the innocent are basically damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Just seems kind of messed up to me.

I think it would be much more likely for an innocent person to fail a lie detector test than a guilty person to pass one. Even if you're innocent you're still going to be stressed out that you need a machine to prove your innocence. That seems like a mental toughness game.

It is nothing more than a stress test. The cops on shows always get het up when anybody even asks for a lawyer, let alone refuses a polygraph-bleating about how innocent men don't laywer up. Well they do if they are smart-because then it makes it impossible for the cops to bully, assault, make threats, trick not very intelligent or mentally disabled people with the mind of a child into admitting to doing something they didn't.

Over here in the UK they have become a thing in the probation service, although the government claim not to send any convicted sex offenders back to prison on just that evidence alone-they say a failure will mean they look harder at people. There is a garbage show called Jeremy Kyle where they lie detect people about alleged infidelity & other things & it is presented as 100% reliable & sadly that is what the general public here think. Very scary that in effect we have gone back hundreds of years to where alleged witches were thrown into a river & if they drowned were innocent & if they floated they were guilty & burned at the stake.

It is nothing more than a stress test. The cops on shows always get het up when anybody even asks for a lawyer, let alone refuses a polygraph-bleating about how innocent men don't laywer up. Well they do if they are smart-because then it makes it impossible for the cops to bully, assault, make threats, trick not very intelligent or mentally disabled people with the mind of a child into admitting to doing something they didn't.

That's always funny that people see that as a sign that somebody's guilty. Ask retired law enforcement like FBI agents, retired judges, and retired attorneys general, and they'll all say if you are being questioned in regards to a crime, immediately ask for a lawyer.

"He's telling the truth. At least he thinks he is." - Egon Spengler

Polygraphs can't identify delusions. John Branion thought he was smart by asking for a nitrate test, but those are BS, too. Sodium Pentothol just makes suspects more pliable and open to suggestion/coercion.

Ultimately, DNA testing is still the best we have, next to blood test and fingerprints.
Likewise, the court of public opinion is still the worst method of adjudication that we have.

As quoted from George on Seinfeld "it's not a lie if you believe it." I can't believe polygraphs are still used today in 2019 given how they are known to be pseudoscientific junk with an absurd fail rate.

I can only imagine it was like my mother used to tell me as a young child how your tongue turned black during a lie to get us to confess while she looked in our mouth: she thought it would make us "come clean" since we were just children and didn't know the truth of how silly that is but in my case it backfired since I convinced myself that I MUST have done the bad thing if my tongue really turned black like she was claiming.

One experience in Kangaroo court is enough to know to never take a polygraph (especially since I have severe anxiety and am rather naïve) and never answer any interrogation questions.

On person I've always felt bad for in this situation was Amy Bechtel's husband, Steve, because on the advice of his attorney, he declined the police's request to take a polygraph. I definitely think Steve's alibi is strong enough evidence that he's innocent, but because he followed his attorney's advice and did not submit to the test, some people will always assume he's got something to hide.

I never for a second thought that Steve was anything less than 100% innocent and his case is a perfect example of how easily you or I could be accused of a horrible crime. The alleged statement that Amy made about Steve “being rough” was yet another example of how an innocent comment can be seen as evidence of murder.

All indications were that Steve was nothing but cooperative until investigators lied to him and he wisely terminated the interview.