[Nutmog]

Nor do eyewitness stories. Nor does recognizing someone from a single photo instead of a proper lineup. These are cases where there's already no reliable evidence in the first place. Really, they should go to court and it would be clear they're not guilty but the polygraph just helps shortcut it. Even better would be no polygraph and just release people when they find they don't have any reliable evidence.

[roel_v]

"but the polygraph just helps shortcut it"

The point is that polygraphs are utter nonsense, at about the same level as reading tea leaves. Had she failed the polygraph, she'd still be prosecuted. No judicial process should have a decision point that is stochastic by design.

[vidarh]

> Had she failed the polygraph, she'd still be prosecuted.

The article does not support that claim. It might be. But they also specifically acknoledge that polygraphs are unreliable and seem to use it mainly as a filter to deter people who are worried they might fail it, and in parallel they carry out a case review.

> No judicial process should have a decision point that is stochastic by design.

In an ideal world, no. But adding an extra decision point where the worst that can happen is that the prosecution that was going forward keeps going forward, and the best that can happen is that the case gets dropped without the ordeal of a trial sounds like a substantial improvement even if it doesn't always work.

[roel_v]

" But adding an extra decision point where the worst that can happen is that the prosecution that was going forward keeps going forward, and the best that can happen is that the case gets dropped without the ordeal of a trial sounds like a substantial improvement even if it doesn't always work."

Uh, that's not the worst that can happen. The worst that can happen is that those who actually committed crimes are let off because they learned how to 'beat' a polygraph, or who just got plain lucky. And if you know already that your suspect is innocent, then why the polygraph?

Look I understand how adding some voodoo scapegoat to a complicated social construct can be used to change institutional mores that are impenetrable otherwise. So in that sense, I have no rational reason to discourage the use of a polygraph here; just like one can say 'if homeopathy helps people, why shouldn't they use it? And why shouldn't we finance it from the same means we finance regular health care?'. From a utilitarian point of view, there is no denying this. I maintain that it's still bad (maybe not a net negative, but a negative still) to use acknowledge superstition this way.

[vidarh]

> The worst that can happen is that those who actually committed crimes are let off because they learned how to 'beat' a polygraph

They would also need to "beat" the case review of the available evidence. If there is no evidence, they shouldn't be convicted anyway - even if they are guilty.

[gerbilly]

>Uh, that's not the worst that can happen. The worst that can happen is that those who actually committed crimes are let off

No the worst that can happen is that someone who actually is innocent fails the polygraph and goes to jail anyway.

[chris_wot]

If a polygraph is a filter that just doesn't work, then it's a total waste of time as it won't work as a filter, or anything else for that matter.

[Scarblac]

The _threat_ of a polygraph test might filter out some guilty people who are afraid of it. They don't use the result of the test for anything, according to the article.

[chris_wot]

I think that ethically that's problematic. I consider that to be coercion based on pseudoscience. There are people out there who are afraid of it for a variety of reasons - I can think of a few off the top of my head:

They are concerned they might ask a question unrelated to the case that incriminates them

They are concerned that they ask a question that causes them personal problems, even if they are innocent (like past infidelity from 20 years ago, etc)

They are concerned that the polygraph might be wrong and incriminate them for something they haven't done

If they don't use the results of the test for anything, then it's a deceptive interrogation technique and one that should be stopped.

[fghrthtb]

But you see the polygraph test doesn't have to be accurate. It's not there to actually tell whether the person is guilty. It's there so that the police can save face. Instead of "we made a mistake, we charged the wrong person", they can say "we charged this person, all the evidence suggested they were guilty, but, look at this polygraph test! It proves they are actually innocent". The police must not be questioned, if you believe the police are corrupt as I do then you become very unhappy/restless. Such an attitude does not lend itself to a cohesive society...

[Scarblac]

No, the article says that the result of the test does not matter. It is bluff.