"they know these kinds of tests can be unreliable, being confronted with the chance to take one can filter out disingenuous defendants."
So if I was charged with a crime and when offered a polygraph test and I refused it on the grounds that it is unreliable I would be treated as being likely to be "disingenuous" and therefore presumably more likely to be guilty?
Edit: I meant more likely to be thought of as guilty.
Comments
"they know these kinds of tests can be unreliable, being confronted with the chance to take one can filter out disingenuous defendants."
So if I was charged with a crime and when offered a polygraph test and I refused it on the grounds that it is unreliable I would be treated as being likely to be "disingenuous" and therefore presumably more likely to be guilty?
Edit: I meant more likely to be thought of as guilty.
Well, going on pure logic, all disingenuous defendants refuse the test =/= all those who refuse the test are disingenuous.
However, an overhaul of the process would need to accompany any use of a polygraph.
You think "pure logic" is being applied at any part of the process?
I think a guilty person has nothing to lose by taking a polygraph test.
Except for the one guilty party who somehow ended up uncovering more evidence that they did the crime.