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.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
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.
Many police departments still use DNA evidence the way they have used fingerprints and tire tracks: to determine whether a suspect committed the crime.
Later, I went down to the Washington field office and an onsite polygraph was administered.
Polygraphs have sparked a fierce debate for at least a century.
In reality, those rare few cases with good forensic evidence are the ones that make it to court.
After reviewing the polygraph charts in private, the polygraph examiner told me that I had passed and that he believed I had nothing to do with the anthrax letters.
Discovering witnesses is just as important as catching criminals.
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.
As one who was a prosecutor for many years, I can tell you that having a tape recording of interrogations would help everybody. It would make clear if there had been improper pressure exerted on a defendant or witness, and it would also protect the interrogating officer from false claims that such pressure had been brought to bear.
Polygraph tests are 20th-century witchcraft.