I'm curious what your source is for saying "this myth about innocent people getting the chair, is just that, a myth."

This.

But what if you faltered and you believed that you were responsible for their death? A Truth/Lie test isn't based on facts, it's based on psychology.

yes it is wrong unless he stole your ruppes

so...nothing then. OK.

Of course they don't KNOWINGLY put innocent people in prison, but how do you know there aren't any who were placed there because they were wrongly convicted? Like with the OJ Simpson example, if he is truly guilty and was falsely acquitted of murder, then would it not be possible for the opposite to happen?

no I was hoping you could at least post a source that provides a compelling argument that people that have been exonerated shouldn't have been. You're really not saying anything except "there are no innocent people in prisonn just because I say so"

Just a note that I'm about to do some speculation, but I think it's quite possible:

You can look it up, but polygraph tests have a high false-positive rate (sometimes about 50%, which is like chance). It's entirely possible that his lawyer advised him to not take the test and have his fate depend on something risky like that.

But the what if's actually matter ALOT. You will quickly learn humanity tends to form social groups with particular beliefs and seeks certain knowledge, and will quickly deny anything that is contrary to that belief (See: Christianity and Charles Darwin)

What if he didn't want to take the test? What if he was a witch? What if he was a criminal? What if he believed that he was doing it for a cause.

Ultimately, the test depends on what you actually believe. Polygraph testing has been known to give incorrect readings

Read: sex scandal case in Australia, Teen girl claims sex scandal, has images of popular person.
Polygraph testing first shows that she was involved and reads true

2 months later she says it was a lie, the polygraph reads this as true.

Uh ...I never said that. Try reading my reply again. I asked what your source was, and that's it.
In fact, the only person who has used the term of "hordes of innocent people" is you.

It might seem a matter of semantics to some, but I believe it is wrong to murder anyone, yet it may be alright to kill a murderer if done within the legal framework and consensus of the society in which the crime occurred. In vengeance matters, I do not believe it is correct, but that is why we have manslaughter distinctions and discretionary sentencing in the US.

For other nations, it is not my business to judge, but for them to decide. That does not mean that I view the value of life differently for different people, but because I must respect their right to be self determining, as we are, and to decide their own proper course within the context of their own particular beliefs and culture. I can no more tell another society what they may or may not eat, any more than I can tell them what is right for them.

In instances where international law and global consensus agree on grievances, I support their legitimacy in addressing concerns when made in a cooperative and non-politicized manner.

And if you do take it and you know you're innocent, there's a huge chance that the test will come up as positive and destroy whatever little odds you still have. How can you demand that his life be put to a test where it's almost as effective as a coin flip?

Also... read this: http://lawshu.wsits.com/uploads/risinger_Innocents.pdf

well when it comes to people being wrongfully being sent to prison or death row, I don't think "sheer numbers" would be too strong of a term to use even if the number of people would be as low as a few dozen ( which it isn't). That's still too many people wrongfully accused. But yeah forget about the word games.

There have been people that have been exonerated. A quick search will find you some examples. According to you they are still guilty though. I was just wondering if you had something a bit more compelling other than " good people don't go to prison. It's that simple" or "My source is the lack of innocent people in jail" which is pretty useless.

Did you know that polygraphs are admissible in fewer than half of US states, and not admissible at all in most of the EU? In those states that do allow polygraphs, there are generally restrictions on them as well. The reason for all this is that the tests aren't foolproof, and are in fact quite prone to both false negatives and false positives, especially if the person's been trained for it. Law enforcement agencies use them all the time because they're helpful in investigations, but they're simply not reliable enough to be a true indicator.

It's not admissible in court in most states, so taking one probably wouldn't help to prove or disprove anything either way, regardless of your guilt. I could easily take a test, have the test say that I didn't do it, and the prosecution would pull out all of the dozens of studies that have shown polygraph tests are unscientific and inaccurate. So it would do me no good at all. That's the whole "inadmissible" thing.

Secondly, you can never be forced to take a polygraph against your will. Sometimes you'll have to take one if you're applying for a security clearance or something, but that's hardly mandatory. So there'd be no "arguing" with the interrogator, you just say "no" and they say "okay." Thirdly, NOBODY should ever talk to the police without their lawyer present if they've been accused of anything, ESPECIALLY if they're innocent. The police station is not the place to determine guilt, the courtroom is. That's why we have a legal system in the first place, you know.


Here's an interesting example. I could go to the police station, tell them that you attacked me, and have you arrested. Even if I knew it was totally untrue. You'd still be arrested, and they'd take everything quite seriously, and you'd be "interrogated," because I told them a big old lie. The reason our courts are so rigorous is to prevent stuff like that from ruining somebody's life.