In Frye v. United States, [FN24] the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia established the standard for the admissibility of novel scientific evidence in federal courts??the general acceptance standard. [FN25] Under this test, any novel form of scientific evidence admitted into evidence "must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs." [FN26] This test requires the trial judge to determine, based on expert testimony, whether legitimate debate exists within the scientific community regarding the reliability of the particular technology. [FN27] Although the true meaning of general acceptance is somewhat unclear, [FN28] it does not require a showing of universal acceptance. [FN29] In California, subsequent cases have delineated that general acceptance means a "consensus," or the absence of public opposition by ".scientists significant either in number or expertise."'

http://www.tylerlaw.com/pepperdine.rtf

In other words, with respect to polygraphy and its over 40 years worth of being "established," it has never met, nor will it ever in its current form, generally accepted scientific standards.

My guess is that the poly is not scientifically verifiable. The lawyers would tear the poly results apart if they did not fit their current agenda.

My guess again for not polygraphing politicians and lawyers is that they know the joke behind it and are smarter than we give them credit by not wanting to put their own jobs on the line at the chance rate the poly is capable of.

In part because it does not meet the Frye standard.  And some Judges and Lawyers are required to undergo polygraph examinations.

I have a question that I thought maybe somebody could help me answer. Why is it that polygraphs are not allowed inside our precious courtrooms, but we allow it to slander and persecute outside? It doesn't make any sense that the law will not permit the polygraph to taint the law or the courts during a trial, but to be able to work for the law  (i.e. law enforcement) you must pass one. Why aren't lawyers and judges subjected to taking polygraphs when applying for jobs? I would think that if we are trusting these people to uphold our laws and prosecute people that may spend the rest of their lives in prison, we would want to make sure that their moral character is at the same level as a police officer's.