I shouldn't have let Mr. Warner's conclusions go without comment:


Quote:

Taking sides in the debate over polygraph testing should not blind those interested in seeking the truth in criminal cases. Polygraph testing can help law enforcement investigators obtain the complete facts and bring the guilty to justice.

I agree with Mr. Warner here. I don't think anyone is arguing that that  polygraphy can't help investigators obtain relevant facts. To the extent that it leads to independently corroborable admissions/confessions that might not otherwise have been obtained, it certainly may.

However, because CQT polygraphy is without validity, to the extent that polygraph chart readings are relied on, it may also pose an impediment to law enforcement investigators obtaining the complete facts and may help the guilty to evade justice.


Quote:

Regardless of its validity or reliability, polygraph testing offers investigators another tool they can employ in interviews to help them obtain additional valuable information.

True, but it's in the same league as other interrogational ruses such as falsely telling a suspect that he was caught on a hidden surveillance camera or that one of his co-suspects has fingered him.


Quote:

In today’s world of terrorists and criminals bent on destruction and mayhem, the law enforcement profession must use all of the techniques and strategies available to safeguard American communities.

Al-Qaeda has long been aware that the lie detector is a sham. Nowadays, anyone with Internet access can discover this with a few minutes of research. As knowledge of the truth about lie detectors rapidly spreads, the utility of the polygraph for obtaining admissions can only wane.

While such independently verifiable admissions/confessions as may be obtained should be welcomed, because it is well documented that CQT polygraphy is without scientific basis, it is a dereliction of duty for any investigator to place any reliance on polygraph chart readings.


Quote:

To deprive investigators of a tool that could, more often than not, help them solve crimes or prevent future tragedies demonstrates a lack of understanding that may have grave and far-reaching consequences.

Mr. Warner does not establish in his article that polygraphy helps solve crimes or prevent future tragedies "more often than not." As Drew Richardson pointed out, Mr. Warner fails to consider the negative utility associated with polygraphy. It would appear that the FBI Polygraph Unit's archival research study to which Mr. Warner referred also failed to consider this negative utility. Why might that be?