So, are they systematically working through old forensically-based cases that have DNA-positive samples available to check if they screwed any other ones up, or is this all on the shoulders of the convicted?
So very true. Polygraphs measure physical reactions that can be easily controlled, and misconstrued. Many people will react in such a way that could be read as a lie by simply being shocked or embarrassed in the question asked. Not to mention being nervous can give many of the reactions too.
The results of polygraph testing aren't even admissible in many courts, and the National Academy of Sciences found that they're unreliable, unscientific, and biased.
Despite all this, so many people think they're still a bullet proof method of lie detection. I have heard of a many people who have had false positives on polygraph tests, and have had their life ruined because of it.
There are only a few US government agencies that use polygraphs: the CIA, NSA, et. al.
If you got a false positive you'd be a nervous ninny, and a false negative would mean that you're at least somewhat competent. For them, it's a win/win.
The worst part about the polygraph (besides the fact that it is pseudo-science, they migth as well be using voodoo dolls), is that it punishes those who are honest and rewards good liars. Over the years, they eventually they end up with a bunch of lying sociopaths.
I agree with the purpose and discussion of this article.
But I find it funny that, to help support its argument that forensic methods lack sizeable scientific support, it uses 2 wrong-conviction examples and an experiment with only 6 fingerprint examiners.
That's the difference between the media and science, I suppose. And it is a difference that needs to be clearer in the courtroom.
