Search

POLYGRAPH PLUS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS BETTER THAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ALONE

POLYGRAPH PLUS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS BETTER THAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ALONE

Given that the criminal justice system relies so heavily on people telling the truth, many people wonder why lie detectors are not used routinely in most cases. However, in most states, polygraph results are not admissible in criminal trials. Although polygraphs are also called lie detectors, in reality a polygraph machine does not have any reliable capacity for detecting the truth or falsity of a statement. The machines measure a person’s biological processes to determine if they are becoming stressed out during interrogations. Factors such as an increase in blood pressure or heart rate are measured. While these may be indicators that a person is lying, they may also simply indicate that a suspect is feeling pressurized by the interrogation even if they are telling the truth.

In cases where it is a he said she said like a sexual assault there has to be a means to get to the truth especially if the case is several years old and surfaces conveniently during an event. I can understand the means for retaining a painful event for decades and time doesn't make it less real but it does complicates the victims truth as well as the accused. If the federal government can waterboard a non-US citizen for the truth certainly a polygraph can be used to establish a strong possibility of an event before a court session is made.

The bottom line is, how do you establish guilt with he said she said. The prosecution must present evidence to support two opposing truths or lies and if by chance the polygraph and investigated evidence agrees with the accused then the accused should go free.