Polygraph? What kind of joke is this? Polygraph don't prove or disprove the innocence. It's useless.
> Piper says that though they know these kinds of tests can be unreliable, being confronted with the chance to take one can filter out disingenuous defendants. Regardless of the results of the test - which are inadmissible at trial due to issues with the reliability of the technology - the assistant state's attorney (ASA) in charge of the case would also perform a "de novo" or "from the beginning" review of all the evidence.
So basically, the polygraph is a bluff.
No, it's not.
The point is that polygraphs are utter nonsense, at about the same level as reading tea leaves. Had she failed the polygraph, she'd still be prosecuted. No judicial process should have a decision point that is stochastic by design.
The article does not support that claim. It might be. But they also specifically acknoledge that polygraphs are unreliable and seem to use it mainly as a filter to deter people who are worried they might fail it, and in parallel they carry out a case review.
> No judicial process should have a decision point that is stochastic by design.
In an ideal world, no. But adding an extra decision point where the worst that can happen is that the prosecution that was going forward keeps going forward, and the best that can happen is that the case gets dropped without the ordeal of a trial sounds like a substantial improvement even if it doesn't always work.
They are concerned they might ask a question unrelated to the case that incriminates them
They are concerned that they ask a question that causes them personal problems, even if they are innocent (like past infidelity from 20 years ago, etc)
They are concerned that the polygraph might be wrong and incriminate them for something they haven't done
If they don't use the results of the test for anything, then it's a deceptive interrogation technique and one that should be stopped.
Uh, that's not the worst that can happen. The worst that can happen is that those who actually committed crimes are let off because they learned how to 'beat' a polygraph, or who just got plain lucky. And if you know already that your suspect is innocent, then why the polygraph?
Look I understand how adding some voodoo scapegoat to a complicated social construct can be used to change institutional mores that are impenetrable otherwise. So in that sense, I have no rational reason to discourage the use of a polygraph here; just like one can say 'if homeopathy helps people, why shouldn't they use it? And why shouldn't we finance it from the same means we finance regular health care?'. From a utilitarian point of view, there is no denying this. I maintain that it's still bad (maybe not a net negative, but a negative still) to use acknowledge superstition this way.
No the worst that can happen is that someone who actually is innocent fails the polygraph and goes to jail anyway.
They would also need to "beat" the case review of the available evidence. If there is no evidence, they shouldn't be convicted anyway - even if they are guilty.