notguilty's point is that if polygrapher's claims that their thaumaturgy is 95% accurate were true, then it'd be used a hell of a lot more than it is.  Who really thinks that the 12-person jury is 95% accurate?  And, if the polygraph is more accurate than the jury, why not use it?  The polygraph would usually end up being a lot cheaper and less inconvenient than a jury trial in almost all instances.

Basically, either the jury system should be replaced in most instances by the polygraph or the jury system is more than 95% accurate.  Any other position couldn't be held by a moral person (why would you try someone by a less accurate means when a more accurate and cheaper means is available?), not that polygraphers are particularly moral, or even moral agents at all.

Some legislator somewhere should propose a bill to eliminate trial by jury in favor of the polygraph (this would probably take a constitutional amendment in most states, which usually guarantee trial by jury in their bills of rights).  While he or she is at it, legislation to require all elected office holders to undergo a polygraph at least once every two years would also be good.  After all, they're 95% accurate and how can you be in favor of denying information about their government to citizens?

If such bills were introduced, it'd be a huge blow to the polygraph industrial complex.  They'd be guaranteed to make national news and very likely to spark curiosity about the polygraph.  The bills' sponsor would probably get lots of TV interviews to spread the word too.  The polygraph only lives in the dark recesses of society; it cannot survive out in the open.