NBA Refs Off the Hook?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Just because a convicted felon and practiced liar is able to pass a polygraph?

I remember seeing F. Lee Bailey on a talk show many years ago. He was arguing that polygraph results should be admitted into evidence in trials. His reasoning was that polygraphs had a higher rate of accuracy than some other scientific tests that were admissible. He didn't name those, though.

Sounds like a decent argument to me. The counter argument to this is that the "weight" polygraph results would carry in court would be out of proportion and that juries would believe they were 100% accurate despite any other evidence that would lead to a different conclusion.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

I remember seeing F. Lee Bailey on a talk show many years ago. He was arguing that polygraph results should be admitted into evidence in trials. His reasoning was that polygraphs had a higher rate of accuracy than some other scientific tests that were admissible. He didn't name those, though.

Sounds like a decent argument to me. The counter argument to this is that the "weight" polygraph results would carry in court would be out of proportion and that juries would believe they were 100% accurate despite any other evidence that would lead to a different conclusion.

I think the legalese is that the prejudice to the jury from a polygraph outweighs its probative value.