.1% inaccurate means there is always a doubt in peoples mind and you could not convict on that
They can be beaten!
Supposedly a person can be trained to fool them; they don't detect lying as such, just an elevated physical reaction to a question, and that reaction may not be caused by lying and thus give false positives; some people simply do not react physically when they lie (I think sociopaths might be among them, but not sure). Supposedly there is a brain scan that actually registers lying, but just how accurate it is I don't know.<br />
All of which is why they're not admissible in a court of law.<br />
You're the one with the law background! LOL I'm just going by what I've read and see on TV, and those sources say no, they're not accepted as evidence. Again, with the new brain scan one, I don't know if it's as reliable as is claimed or if it's just a nice story to report on for the news.
actually polygraph tests are not proven to be 99.9 % accurate. it's a common misbelief. they are only marginally more accurate than the old "lie detector " of eating a cheese sandwich, through the belief if you're lying your mouth gets dry and produces less saliva, so if you couldn't finish the sandwich without a drink you were lying. the readings of someone worried and scared, could be interpretated as guilty. not to mention, the readings are still completely ba<x>sed on the person who is reading them. It's an archaic method of honesty, and wrong more than people think.
They can be tricked with relative ease (if you know what you're doing). My Pysche teacher told me how to cheat them
Mine is 80% accuate, ask my wife. I tell her 80% of everything and keep the rest a secret, even to the lie detector.
Are the results admissible in a court of law?