pailryder wrote on Nov 20
th, 2008 at 2:10pm:
Lethe
Polygraph is just one tree in the dark forest of PDD. Do you suppose you will like BEOSP (brain electrical oscillation signature profiling) any better?
Get real brother, PDD, in one form or another, is here to stay.
Unfortunately it's not one tree in the dark forest; that could be an acceptable situation. But to many, it is the only tree in the forest (sorry, your metaphor isn't that good).
Anyway, you didn't address my point. Is the polygraph 95% accurate? 90% accurate? How accurate is the jury? If the polygraph is more accurate why not use it--at least when it is as cheap or cheaper? Can't answer that one, can you?
If you say the polygraph is more accurate you pretty much have to say it should be used in lieu of the jury (but you could demure and say that's just your opinion and you have no authority to make the change so you won't lift a finger in the matter--a good man doing nothing and letting evil triumph). And if the polygraph is not more accurate, then it can't possibly be 95 or even 90% accurate, as you jokers like to claim--since the jury system sure as hell ain't that accurate.
And the polygraph would be cheaper, at least in felony cases. They usually bring in 20 jurors for average cases, 12 of which will hear the case (possibly with alternates). If they're all paid just $20 and the trial is just one day, that's $400 for jurors alone. Plus you've got to pay a police officer to be in the room, a stenographer, judge, bailiff, et al. (Sorry, I know that cost-benefits analyses are not your strong point, but perhaps the point will be grasped by the non-polygraphers who read this thread.)
So, either the polygraph is not 90% accurate and you're lying about it (which conveniently lines your own pockets) or you want to use inferior means to try people, which most non-polygraphers would say is pretty immoral. But as long as you get yours, eh? Enjoy the dilemma, because either way: you're evil.