T.M. Cullen wrote on Aug 23
rd, 2008 at 6:02am:
If this is true, and if the polygraph scientifically proven to be highly accurate (like DNA testing), then why can't a person be charged with a crime be forced to take a polygraph?
Why are results from DNA testing admissible, but polygraph usually not?
TC
I followed the link provided and found it to be an interesting thread Mr. Cullen.
The answer to your question is pretty simple, I’m surprised you didn’t find it.
Go look up a copy of our constitution, (That's U.S. Constitution, just in case you aren’t a citizen) Skip over the main part, even though it’s good reading when you have time, and go to the end where they have placed changes to the constitution called “AMENDMENTS” . They have been numbered for your convenience. Go down to number 4 and mark it for later reading.
Read number
5 carefully “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”
I have highlighted the portion that answers your question concerning compelled polygraph. The U.S Supreme Court has determined that “being a witness against himself” refers to communicative behavior that reveals the contents of a person's mind. Because giving DNA samples does not require a person to convey, through communication, the contents of their mind, the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination isn't pertinent. Though there may compulsion and self-incrimination, there is no testimony.
Since Polygraph examinations require verbal responses, during the pre-test interview and testing process that are potentially incriminating, the Fifth Amendment does apply.
Now go back and read the Fourth Amendment. That is the one that applies to DNA samples and similar items of PHYSICAL Evidence.
The answer to your question is that you are arguing Constitutional Apples and Oranges and your analogy is defective.
If I may borrow one of your more expressive and revealing statements:
Sancho Panza
modified to correct spelling error