How come they don't force polygraph monitors on people under oath

[brainhulk]

Have it on a big screen above their head with a Pinocchio animation

 

[BoomerD]

Because...

a) Polygraphs aren't admissible in court
b) Polygraphs aren't terribly accurate. Many people can fool them.

 

[lxskllr]

Lulzy, but it wouldn't do a thing to ensure truth. Polygraphs are about as much of a joke as our legal system is.

 

[disappoint]

Polygraphs are inadmissible in court because they are inaccurate, have false positives and can be fooled into giving false negatives as well.

They are all but useless except in the discovery or detective phase of an investigation.

 

[MtnMan]

Basically they are snake oil combined with questionable technology.

Might as well use palm reading, tea leaves, a gypsy fortune teller or their horoscope to determine if they are telling the truth or not.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Polygraphs are inadmissible in court because they are inaccurate, have false positives and can be fooled into giving false negatives as well.

They are all but useless except in the discovery or detective phase of an investigation.

All true, but missing the bigger picture. HTF do you get that many trained polygraph people to spend that much time with that many witnesses? It already takes years for simple cases to wend their way through the court system, institute tests for every witness and you up that to decades.

 

[disappoint]

All true, but missing the bigger picture. HTF do you get that many trained polygraph people to spend that much time with that many witnesses?

You offer them milk and cookies. Or waffles. Tell the truth now, who can resist waffles?

 

[Rakehellion]

Have it on a big screen above their head with a Pinocchio animation

Because unlike you, most people don't live in a cartoon.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Once the person is in court it's more or less a question of how much money they have to fight it, than if they are telling the truth. Lot of people end up in jail for crime they never committed.

 

[Captante]

Essentially because they don't work.

 

[Newell Steamer]

It would work - the judge just has to pull the polygraph machine, the technician and all the wires from his pocket.

OP, I just provided all the logistics. So, don't let anyone else tell you this is not feasible.

Oh, and it would all be for free; since there are thousands of court cases going on each day, the cost for such a set up would be free: the more you buy of something, the less it costs (it's basic economics).

 

[GagHalfrunt]

You offer them milk and cookies. Or waffles. Tell the truth now, who can resist waffles?

I'd lie and tell them I was a polygraph expert just to get free waffles. And if they put me on a lie detector to confirm I'd tell them I passed because I'm a polygraph expert and they don't know how to results without me.

 

[disappoint]

I'd lie and tell them I was a polygraph expert just to get free waffles. And if they put me on a lie detector to confirm I'd tell them I passed because I'm a polygraph expert and they don't know how to results without me.

Hmm let's see now according to you the protocol for obtaining waffles is as follows:

How to results:

Step 1: Lie.
Step 2: Consume waffles.

Nope. Nope. There's something wrong here. There was no mention of profits. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party?

 

[Capt Caveman]

Because...

a) Polygraphs aren't admissible in court
b) Polygraphs aren't terribly accurate. Many people can fool them.

This and another dumbass thread by the OP

 

[who?]

Polygraphs measure spikes in anxiety, If you can stay calm a polygraph won't show anything.
Parkinsons disease can be like a polygraph. I once explained to a friend of my father that the shaking from Parkinsons seemed to start if Dad was nervous about something and the shaking made him more nervous which made the shaking worse. After he heard me say this Dad appeared to be doing mental calming exercises and the shaking stopped.

 

[Red Squirrel]

On similar subject, has "swearing on the Bible" ever proven to actually convince someone to tell the truth? Someone who is atheist wont care about that, and someone who is Christian might still lie anyway and ask for forgiveness after. If a lie meant the difference between being free and ending up in Jail, I would probably lie anyway. Does not really mean I actually do hate the Bible, it's just a symbolism thing they do to make you feel bad for lying if you do. On the other hand I'd probably just tell the truth anyway knowing that the penalty will be worse if they find out I lied. Really depends on the situation I guess.