The Legal and Ethical Issues of Polygraph Tests from a Future Lawyer’s Perspective

As a student who dreams of becoming a lawyer, I am deeply interested in the tools and systems used to determine truth in legal settings. One such tool is the polygraph, commonly known as a lie detector. While polygraph tests are often portrayed as scientific and objective, they remain controversial due to their questionable reliability and the ethical concerns surrounding their use. This report explores the legal and ethical implications of polygraph tests from the viewpoint of a future legal professional.

Polygraph machines do not directly detect lies. Instead, they measure physiological responses—such as heart rate, breathing, and skin conductivity—that are believed to change when a person is under stress. The underlying assumption is that people become stressed when they lie, and this stress can be measured. However, stress can also arise from many other factors, such as fear, anxiety, or simply the pressure of being questioned. Thus, the polygraph does not truly detect lies; it only detects signs of stress.

From a legal perspective, this presents serious issues. In many jurisdictions, polygraph test results are not admissible in court because they do not meet standards of scientific reliability. For example, in the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled against the use of polygraph evidence in federal trials, and many state courts also prohibit it. A fundamental principle of law is the presumption of innocence. If polygraph results are used to suggest guilt without definitive proof, they can unfairly influence judges, juries, and even the public. Furthermore, polygraphs can be used as psychological pressure tools during interrogations, potentially violating a suspect’s right to remain silent.

Ethically, the use of polygraph tests raises additional concerns. These tests collect intimate physiological data, often without full understanding or consent from the person being tested. In employment settings, requiring workers to take a polygraph can be seen as a violation of privacy and dignity. Even in criminal investigations, forcing a suspect to take a polygraph could be considered coercive. The consequences of a failed test can be severe—even if the subject was telling the truth—leading to wrongful accusations, job loss, or public shame.

Some critics argue that polygraph results are meaningless unless interpreted carefully by professionals who understand the limits of the technology. A person could “fail” a test simply because they are nervous, while a skilled liar might “pass” because they remain calm. These outcomes are dangerous in legal situations where people’s futures are at stake. Despite these criticisms, polygraphs continue to be used in some law enforcement agencies and workplaces, especially in the United States, which raises the question: Should they be?

As a future lawyer, I believe that while technology can support legal investigations, it should never replace fundamental legal principles such as the presumption of innocence, the right to privacy, and the right against self-incrimination. Polygraph tests should not be used as primary evidence in court, nor should they be used to intimidate or manipulate suspects. Instead, legal professionals must advocate for evidence-based, fair, and ethical practices. If polygraphs are to be used at all, it should be with full transparency, voluntary consent, and as a supplementary—not decisive—tool.

In conclusion, polygraph tests sit at the intersection of science, law, and ethics. While they may appear to offer quick answers, their reliability and fairness remain questionable. As someone who aspires to become a lawyer, I believe that justice must be built not on machines that measure stress, but on principles that protect truth, rights, and human dignity. Only then can we ensure that the legal system serves its true purpose: the fair and just treatment of all people.

필요하다면 이 글을 요약하거나 PPT용으로 압축해 드릴 수도 있어요.
문법적 오류나 이상한 문장 있어?