notguilty1 wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 3:42pm:



If you really had been following the case for very long you would know that Casey Anthony and her parents were offerred polygraph exams in September, both by local law enforcement and the FBI. They excercised their rights and declined. 

Sancho Panza

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.

pailryder wrote on Nov 20^th, 2008 at 2:10pm:


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.