Mapping the world's opinions

Once called "the strip searches of the mind", polygraph test creators maintain that their lie detectors can detect when a suspect is lying in 80-95% of cases. Should we use them in the justice system to secure convictions? Or are they a dangerous and gross violation of a suspect's legal rights?

Yes, they should be allowed.

The are helpful in determining the truthfulness of a subject. Technology should be used to aid in our search for truth.

They are already used in other aspects of law

Polygraph tests have been successfully implemented in other parts of the legal process. Explore

Inducing a confession

The test itself is not as important as its ability to induce a confession. Making them admissible in court would put increased pressure on a guilty suspect to provide a full confession. Explore

The illusion of justice is more powerful

Lie-detector tests increase the public faith in the justice system, which creates a more stable, law-abiding society. Explore

They work

Lie detectors can detect falsehoods with an 80-90% accuracy rate. Explore

No, they should not be admissible.

They are not accurate enough to be used in legal proceedings.

They don't work

Lie detectors are not accurate. They are little better than a coin toss. Explore

Violates the suspects right to not self-incriminate

Defendants have the right not to self-incriminate. Lie detectors would infringe on that right. Explore

Diminishes the jury's role

The trial by jury is a bedrock of many Western legal systems. Lie detectors diminish the role of the jury in the legal process. Explore

Inherent racial bias

Lie detectors are inherently racially biased. Explore
This page was last edited on Wednesday, 17 Jul 2019 at 07:53 UTC