I can't shake the feeling/belief that lie detectors are extremely effective (as in, far more than things we consider to be very impactful like eye-witness testimony).
I base this solely on two things I observe: first, if lie detectors were real and effective they would revolutionize justice and that would have a horrific effect on the billionaire class and for-profit criminal justice system. Second, despite them being all kinds of popular a few decades ago in popular media, etc., they are largely cast aside today and rarely mentioned.
Should you ever force someone to take one? Fuck no - you shouldn't make anyone testify in any capacity.
But should people be allowed to voluntarily take them if they work? Absolutely. Think how many people could be credibly acquitted with a 10 minute low cost test. "Where you in the city yesterday? No."
Obviously they're not 100% perfect. But are they better or equal than other forms of evidence (i.e., eye witness; photographic) that we allow as evidence today?
Or are they actually bullshit? I've not looked deeply into this issue so would love to have my belief affirmed or changed.
EDIT: Really appreciate the responses I definitely was not considering the other possibility: that they have been known to be bullshit for a long time yet still propped up by law enforcement for as long as they can.
There are many different types of lie detectors, some work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWoPI-VoFV0 (skip to 20:50 for the most interesting part)
It depends on the type of lie. Things like "I've never seen this object/face before" they can detect.
Things like "I don't know that pass code" they cannot do much better than a skilled interrogator.
Polygraphs and such are unreliable. The function of a polygraph is not to find out the truth, but to build a case to convict.