I am not opposed to the limited use of polygraphs in a case where a person is suspected of wrongdoing. But widespread use of the polygraph as a screening tool goes far beyond what is acceptable.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Polygraphs are not allowed as evidence in most U.S. courts, but they're routinely used in police investigations, and the Defense Department relies heavily on them for security screening.
Polygraphs have sparked a fierce debate for at least a century.
People should be allowed to document evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Where is the expectation of privacy if someone is conspiring to commit crime?
It is always right to detect a fraud, and to perceive a folly; but it is very often wrong to expose either. A man of business should always have his eyes open, but must often seem to have them shut.
Wrongful convictions happen every week in every state in this country. And they happen for all the same reasons. Sloppy police work. Eyewitness identification is the most - is the worst type almost. Because it's wrong about half the time. Think about that.
There is no harm in being sometimes wrong - especially if one is promptly found out.
We have experienced an utter explosion in investigative techniques. Walk the streets, look at the cameras! They are now recognising people automatically from photos; we have DNA fingerprinting, infrascan photos that can identify you from the veins in your face.
Discovering witnesses is just as important as catching criminals.
Many police departments still use DNA evidence the way they have used fingerprints and tire tracks: to determine whether a suspect committed the crime.
Polygraph tests are 20th-century witchcraft.