Polygraphs can be fooled... so should we use them in crime deterrent?

[Orion Nebula]

Goodness knows. Just floating an idea. Certainly, for some criminals, every ounce of deterrent is necessary.

Every question can be twisted into a heated debate here. Politics, parenting, religion and friendly banter are not permitted.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Security cams are more of a deterrent in that situation.

Edit: How likely is it that the the police will arrange a polygraph because of $15.40 stolen from a convenience store?

But plenty still commit crimes although they are on camera They don't care.

 

[sam_gordon]

Every question can be twisted into a heated debate here. Politics, parenting, religion and friendly banter are not permitted.

Or people can not get offended so easily when they're challenged.

 

[Mysterian]

But plenty still commit crimes although they are on camera They don't care.

I agree, but those are exceptions, and that doesn't change the fact that cameras can deter others from committing crime.

Even fake cameras are sold as deterrents. You can put a polygraph machine on your front porch to scare off porch pirates, but they will just steal that too.

Again, the original claim that polygraphs are a deterrent especially doesn't make sense in a convenient store setting (Nea's hypothetical), where security cameras routinely exist. Stores don't put up signs that say "Shoplifters will be polygraphed!". Bigger stores like Walmart even have signs up in aisles alerting customers to their camera feeds.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I agree, but those are exceptions, and that doesn't change the fact that cameras can deter others from committing crime.

Even fake cameras are sold as deterrents. You can put a polygraph machine on your front porch to scare off porch pirates, but they will just steal that too.

Again, the original claim that polygraphs are a deterrent especially doesn't make sense in a convenient store setting (Nea's hypothetical), where security cameras routinely exist. Stores don't put up signs that say "Shoplifters will be polygraphed!". Bigger stores like Walmart even have signs up in aisles alerting customers to their camera feeds.

Of course there are exception but criminals have become bolder over the last few years,

Polygraphs as a deterrent is a non starter. A suspect cannot be forced to take the test.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Goodness knows. Just floating an idea. Certainly, for some criminals, every ounce of deterrent is necessary.

It's completely unreliable to legal standards, and thus can't be used as evidence. Thus, there is not even an ounce of deterrent value. Nor even a shred of one.

Every question can be twisted into a heated debate here. Politics, parenting, religion and friendly banter are not permitted.

There is no heated debate nor even legitimate debate. There is simply no deterrent value to any potential polygraph test because it cannot be used as evidence against anyone. Therefore the debate question is moot. It would be like debating whether we should swim in a dry lake.

This really should be the end of this thread. But I doubt it will be.

 

[Neapolitan Ice Cream]

OK, let me tweak this slightly - should polygraph evidence be permissible in court or police cross-interrogations, under the understandings that said evidence is not 100% accurate?

 

[fla4fun]

Refusing a polygraph shouldn’t be considered an admission of any wrong doing. Most attorneys will advise their client against it.

True, but it comes across the same as a person who refuses to answer questions during a standard police interview, as “What are they trying to hide?”. It simply causes law enforcement to look at a person more closely to see if they were involved. There are many reasons a person might refuse a polygraph, or even a DNA test, that have nothing to do with actual guilt.

 

[sam_gordon]

OK, let me tweak this slightly - should polygraph evidence be permissible in court or police cross-interrogations, under the understandings that said evidence is not 100% accurate?

While there are claims that "the latest" tests are 98% accurate, a google search brings up results in the 80% range. Should that good enough to convict someone? Witness testimony can also be unreliable, but that's allowed. But defense attorneys can try to impeach a witness. I feel a jury would put too much weight on polygraph results. So at this point, I still say "no".

 

[Stratman50th]

OK, let me tweak this slightly - should polygraph evidence be permissible in court or police cross-interrogations, under the understandings that said evidence is not 100% accurate?

You really can't tweak it. The results aren't permissible for a reason. It is a given that they aren't accurate enough to be evidence therefore they could cause a mistrial if allowed and are wrong. Or worse, they could convict an innocent person. As a retired police officer I'm all for convictions of guilty people. However I want them convicted based on good evidence not unreliable or bad evidence which polygraph results are.
Polygraph results are based solely on the interpretation of the operator, therefore, an educated guess.

 

[tinkerbellandpeterpan]

So you'd assume a criminal, thinking there is NO other evidence against them, would choose not to commit a crime because they might fail a polygraph? I mean wouldn't the prudent criminal think there might be cameras, fingerprints, witness ID, etc that would "be enough" to persuade them not to commit a crime?

A very strange question.

One very strange question in a long line of very strange questions. Seems like there is a competition between two posters to see who can post the most random and bizarre questions per day.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

True, but it comes across the same as a person who refuses to answer questions during a standard police interview, as “What are they trying to hide?”. It simply causes law enforcement to look at a person more closely to see if they were involved. There are many reasons a person might refuse a polygraph, or even a DNA test, that have nothing to do with actual guilt.

After watching enough police type or game warden type shows and other true crime shows in truth I think a lot of people simply don't know their rights. I don't know all of my rights TBH.

I just watched On Patrol Live (which is really Live PD) and last night's episode they had a traffic stop smelled some drugs and when they called for back up said "well I don't really have enough for a warrant so I'm hoping he'll just consent to a search of his car" and the other cop said basically "you being nice??" as in go in with a friendly demeanor and hope the driver is receptive to that and will consent to a search so he gave him a warning on whatever the traffic stop was about and then asked to search his vehicle and the driver agreed. You can def. see how sometimes things are done to elicit compliance.

Even if I didn't have anything to hide in my vehicle and would more than likely consent to a search I should be aware of my rights in doing so. Innocent people need protection too and should consult with a legal representative about these things. Instead of looking at what someone may be hiding it might be a good thing to look at it as protecting someone's rights, it's why we have hoops to go through depending on the situation and why we have public defenders (despite how bad their rap can be) because their job and the police's job is to stick to legal means.

 

[tinkerbellandpeterpan]

I also tell my husband all the time when we are watching tv or movies "if I turn up dead, whether you did it or not, say nothing, get a lawyer and don't take a polygraph".