Is it true that, in a criminal trial, the lie detector test carries "moral weight", though is not admissible?

The polygraph, or “lie detector”, test is complete pseudoscience, and should not be admissible.

@hello321: I don’t believe it either, if you want to know.

No. It’s absolute junk science. A completely innocent person could fail due to sheer nerves. A someone who’s guilty as hell could pass with flying colors because they’re able to keep calm. There’s a reason polygraphs are inadmissible in court. Why anyone, in this day and age, still puts stock in them is beyond me.

Actually “lie detector” tests are only wrong 10 % to 20 % of the time so . . .they are not like finger prints or DNA and are not evidence.

80 % to 90 % they carry weight but the test is not perfect. The test can be “gamed” if you know what to do.

Anatomy of a Murder, although a good book (not such a great movie) was made 60 years ago. Forensics and lie detection have vastly improved since then.

When it was proven that a lie detector test can be manipulated with practice and mental control, its ‘weight’ became nonexistent. We live in times where even a confession on camera is not always admissible as evidence, why should anyone even bother with the archaic lie detection methods? Anyway, if people still think there’s any weight associated with this test, it could only be psychological weight – not moral or legal weight. Psychologically, we all know that our heart beats faster and we start sweating when we lie….so, it is natural for people to link that to people undergoing lie detector tests and assume that the spikes in the test are because the person is lying…it is a psychological association. Morally, we should all refrain from judging another person, until there is conclusive evidence. That is the moral we should all abide by…we usually aren’t that good moral wise but still, that is the right moral to abide by….so, that message in the movie was wrong. Morally and scientifically wrong.