Why are Polygraph Tests administered if they're not admissible in court?
143936
Admissibility - Polygraph results (or psychophysiological detection of deception examinations) are admissible in some federal circuits and some states. More often, such evidence is admissible where the parties have agreed to their admissibility before the examination is given, under terms of a stipulation. Some jurisdictions have absolute bans on admissibility of polygraph results as evidence and even the suggestion that a polygraph examination is involved is sufficient to cause a retrial. The United States Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue of admissibility, so the rules in federal circuits vary considerably. The Supreme Court has said, in passing, that polygraph examinations raise the issue of Fifth Amendment protection, [Schmerber v. California, 86 S. Ct. 1826 (l966).] The Supreme Court has also held that a Miranda warning before a polygraph examination is sufficient to allow admissibility of a confession that follows an examination, [Wyrick v. Fields, 103 S. Ct. 394 (1982).] In 1993, the Supreme Court removed the restrictive requirements of the 1923 Frye decision on scientific evidence and said Rule 702 requirements were sufficient, [Daubert v. Mettell Dow Pharmaceutcals, 113 S.ct. 2786.]Daubert did not involve lie detection, per se, as an issue, as Frye did, but it had a profound effect on admissibility of polygraph results as evidence, when proffered by the defendants under the principles embodied in the Federal Rules of Evidence expressed in Daubert, see [United States v. Posado (5th Cir. 1995) WL 368417.] Some circuits already have specific rules for admissibility, such as the 11th Circuit which specifies what must be done for polygraph results to be admitted over objection, or under stipulation, [United States v. Piccinonna 885 F.2d 1529 (11th Cir. 1989).] Other circuits have left the decision to the discretion of the trial judge. The rules that states and federal circuits generally follow in stipulated admissibility were established in [State v. Valdez, 371 P.2d 894 (Arizona, 1962).] The rules followed when polygraph results are admitted over objection of opposing counsel usually cite [State v. Dorsey, 539 P.2d 204 (New Mexico, 1975).] Primarily because of Daubert, as well as the impact the other cited cases have had, polygraph examination admissibility is changing in many states. Many appeals, based on the exclusion of polygraph evidence at trial are now under review by appellate courts.
1143597
No you don't have to take a lie detector test. They aren't valid, or correct anyway!\n\nUnfortunately, many police depts don't know how to investigate. What they do is rely on the Lie Detector to base their opinion on whether to charge you or not!\n\nThat is no Investigation, that's pure BS!!
944983
It requires the defendant to show that, but for the actions of the authorities, he would not have broken the law.  \n\nFor example, say he is charged with receiving stolen goods.   The police set up a sting operation at a parking garage, and when he came to get his own car, they gave him one that appeared to be the one he had left with them earlier, but was in fact a stolen car.  That would be a definite case of entrapment, because it's a logical conclusion that if they had brought a different color, make, or model, he'd have known and refused delivery. \n\nJust because the police hired the fifteen year old to try to get into a bar with her own ID showing she was fifteen doesn't mean he was entrapped when he lets her in.   It's a logical inference that any other fifteen year old would have been admitted, and the fact that this particular one was already willing to be a witness doesn't alter the defendant's behavior. \n\nThey have to show that the police conduct was actually responsible for the crime.
566415
Unless they tell you, or you find out from documentation, you can't. By ordering it by court, can get you into some pretty high cost. If the person tested, is found out not to be your parent. You can be sued. Just ask nicely and they may tell you, or they could just lie to you as well. Good Luck!
810590
o. I know this for certain because I work for the probation service and we have someone who is coming to end of their ban and wanted to take their theory test before their ban ended. We called the DVLA and asked them but they told us no.
876608
A polygraph (commonly referred to as a lie detector) is a device that measures and records several physiological variables such as blood pressure, heart rate, respiration and skin conductivity while the subject is asked a series of questions. The measurements are posited to be indicators of anxiety that accompanies the telling of lies. Thus, measured anxiety is equated with telling untruths. However, if the subject exhibits anxiety for other reasons, or can control his anxiety level voluntarily, a measured response can result in unreliable conclusions. A polygraph test is also known as a psychophysiological detection of deception (PDD) examination.\n\nclick here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#History
804776
Hi\nAs far as I know, it is against the law without peole knowing. It also wont be used as viable evidence in any court/tribunal.\n\nYou should, by law be entitled to a witness. IS someone stating otherwise?
1147350
the court looks at the circumstances to see if the evidence gathered was gathered in accordance with the law, or was it gathered illegally, in which case it's inadmissible. \nExample: the police come into your house without a warrant and find drugs.  A suppression hearing determines whether it was right for them to be in your house and whether they can use the evidence (drugs) against you.  \nI'm a NewYork lawyer, and that's what it means here.
928539
that would depend on where the person's criminal background is. in some places it is available for free, other places you have to pay, and there are still other places that the information is not considered public record, and therefore not available to the general public.
791621
in no way whatsoever ( it is not accurate enough for court ) sorry for the pause - at work\n\neven if we ever get a test that is 100% accurate the effect will be minimal \n\nwe would not use it in crime solving ( self incrimination ) nor in business ( right to privacy )
771471
Yes, because the polygraph test measures pulse,  respiration, heart rate, etc.you can flunk a polygraph if you are the extreme nervous type.  They clain that experience examiners can tell the difference between nervousness and deception. If this were the case, why is it that polygraphy results are inadmissable as court evidence?\nPathological liars can pass polygraph tests easy, because they cannot distinguish a lie from the truth, and wholeheartedly belive in their own lies.
685340
They probably all could pass a lie detector test. After someone has been lying much of their lives like these guys they could claim to be green with purple polka dots and the machine wouldn't catch it.
141125
Under certain circumstances, the inavailability of the witness will make hearsay admissable.  However, some states have a doctrine that makes the words of the dead even harder to use as evidence.\n\nYou'd need more facts.
805877
polygraphs are not allowed to be used in any US courts for criminal charges,  they have never been proven to be reliable.\n\n( although all police departments require them as part of the hireing procedure)\n\nthe aging programs only work assuming no serious illness, average weight gain,  and other factors,  one could change slightly a varible or two and the photo can change.  But it can be a close idea that is still better than none
240459
Yes. You would still be eligible to become a police officer if enough time had passed between the offense and the date of your polygraph. The admission in a polygraph of a juvenile theft is not necessarily a disqualification. The main thing is, be TRUTHFUL in the poly! Being dishonest or showing signs of dishonesty during a poly will get you tossed faster than anything else.
777367
Yes, yes, yes and YES again.  They must be subjected to it before they are hired as part of the hiring process, and also get random testing.  If private companies are doing it, why not them?
532614
Yes. Polygraphs are highly innacurate-- so innacurate, in fact, that many states do not allow them to be used as evidence in courts. I know for sure that New York State doesn't allow polygraphs to be used as evidence.\n\nFalse positives are more common than false negatives, however... if someone is very nervous, or the questions are worded badly, it can very easily look like someone is lying who isn't. \n\nYou're right about muscle relaxers, too. They can help a person pass a lie detector. Or he may just be a cool liar-- some people are! Either way, polygraphs really aren't definitive proof of anything.