What are your thoughts about guilty people that passed a polygraph?

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

Supposedly the only people that can beat a lie detector have no conscience.

I did get a false result on the only lie detector I took. They said I was a commie and I never have been.

[Dude111]

It must not be easy to fake it and win!!

[Dogface82]

Originally Posted by dynoguy88

Polygraphs were considered “reliable” 40+ years ago. But you’d be wise to avoid them today.

Jeff Oberholtzer volunteered AND passed a polygraph in 1982. But that didn’t stop police from making his life miserable and warning any woman who was in the same room as him that he was a wife killer. It would be another 15 or so years before he was officially cleared thanks to DNA.

I mentioned pros & cons of polygraph in a previous but failed to point out how results can be misinterpreted or misrepresented.

Jeff Oberholzer's tragic case is an example of abuse in my opinion. But it highlights that interpretation and presentation of polygraph results are subjective.
Interpreters of polygraph results:
1) Polygrapher
2) Detective or interrogater
3) Immediate supervisor
4) Department head
5) Prosecuters office in LE, HR for employee screening.
6) Every individual who reads or hears about a case or incident involving polygraph results.
Misinterpretation can be an honest mistake or deliberate. Anyone along the line can use or misuse results for their own agenda. It is a lose lose situation for a suspect/subject.
1) Fail=guilty
2) Inconclusive=guilty
3) Pass=guilty

As for the original question about the guilty passing a polygraph. If you are not stressed you will pass.
1) Subject knows they are lying but does not stress about deception
2) Subject believes their own lie & doesn't stress.
3) Machine malfunction
4) Polygrapher error

Personally I would never take one. Even under the best circumstances the final results are unreliable.

[Clockwork]

It is a bit like a bloodhound sniffing for clues. Neither are admissible in court. Why with a bloodhound? Because even a trained dog is a dog. A dog can sometimes react to its owner. If a dog smells something and is on the trail for it and is getting praise for it then the dog often will continue that. It is similar with a toddler if they know their parent likes something they are doing.

[bigted12]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

It is a bit like a bloodhound sniffing for clues. Neither are admissible in court. Why with a bloodhound? Because even a trained dog is a dog. A dog can sometimes react to its owner. If a dog smells something and is on the trail for it and is getting praise for it then the dog often will continue that. It is similar with a toddler if they know their parent likes something they are doing.

The dog sniffing is an interesting one, i mean it reminds me of the two dogs eddie and keela in the madeleine mccann case...these dogs were experts, flown around the world on private jets and to hire them for the day was more than the pay the heads of the fbi and scotland yard...

They both found on two seperate occasions the scent of blood and of a cadaver in the two same locations in the appartment and hire car. to say "they made it up for praise" doesn't really make sense, these dogs are highly disciplined, like the famous saying goes "dogs dont iie"

i mean have you ever seen those airport reality shows, where they take a dog along a queue and he "signals".. everytime theres something in the case. it's not about "getting a treat"

but we dismiss the dogs for 2 reasons, 1, they obviously can't speak and testify in court and 2. usually what the dogs have found is counter to what we want or not want to have happened...