In United States v. Scheffer (1998),[50] the U.S. Supreme Court left it up to individual jurisdictions whether polygraph results could be admitted as evidence in court cases.

...

In the United States, the State of New Mexico admits polygraph testing in front of juries under certain circumstances. In many other states, polygraph examiners are permitted to testify in front of judges in various types of hearings (Motion to Revoke Probation, Motion to Adjudicate Guilt).

In Canada they may not be valid in court, but I just felt the need to point that out.

From the same page:

"In the 1987 decision of R. v. B?land, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the use of polygraph results as evidence in court."

If we went by US laws, they could just skip the trial and court system all together and lock you up indefinitely.

I think Dan was referring to the national security laws which allow them to lock up people suspected of terrorism indefinetly, without trial.

But, I think the polygraph worked fine. It certainly detected "Do you think you are a good person"

I find it tragic, in that the polygraph test is bascily pseudoscience. In this case she may have actually cheated, but it would be very easy for a false postive ruin some ones life. Hell, I would not put it past fox to fake the allready questionable results just for ratings.

There is a reason we don't allow polygraph tests in a court of law.

What if the person accused of cheating (or murder) had done the act many years ago, and must actively try to remember if he or she actually did it? Furthermore, even if a person was telling "the truth", it would only be true in his or her mind. If that person was insane, had forgotten, or trained himself to believe otherwise, he could easily tell a truth, which would only be absolutely true in his subjective reality.

Perhaps training the use of microexpressions?

Cheating on your partner is only bad when he/she knows you're doing it.

@Velocity I disagree. Why is cheating wrong? Because it is morally incorrect. Therefore, a morally incorrect action is not fine simply because you're the only one who knows, because the moral implications are still there.

2 Things. One. It's "you're" not "ur". I corrected it in my quote for you.
Two. That is horrible thinking. By that logic, it's acceptable to justify anything as long as no one knows. Is murder right as long as no one knows your doing it? The pain you will cause your significant other makes it wrong ALL the time, regardless.

EDIT: Wow, I didn't even realize how old this thread was when i posted. My bad. Sorry for the Necro.