it cant be done. you cannot fool a computerised, properly conducted test. these tests are simply more accurately able to do what law enforcement professionals are already taught to do. i.e they measure physical responses to to questions asked. however, the tests leave out the good cop bad cop routine, they leave out any personal prejudices of the cop toward the subject, they prevent the cop from putting pressure on the subject, bombarding the subject with questions in a rapid fire and desperate fishing expedition to find anything in word or physical reaction that they can twist to fit their fantasy and use against the subject. granted, the old analogue tests were complete bunkum, and easily fooled. but today the science has moved on. the question we should be raising is how accurate are trained police officers and juries by comparison to properly conducted, computerised polygraphs? too many innocents are having their lives torn to shreds because for others it is better to send 9 innocents into hell if it means that just 1 offender is caught and dealt with. well i say, not for any of the 9, or their families it isnt. if you were innocent and faced that living hell yourself you would want to have accepted anything that could point to reasonable doubt and might spare you from that hell. wouldnt you? in the uk for example, in all cases, legally, the police must withhold any evidence which they have gathered and which might prove the defendant is innocent. certain types of serious criminal allegations (historical allegations of child abuse for example) are tried on the basis of guilty until innocent, and anything the defendant wishes to enter as evidence in their own favour gets ruled as inadmissable. historical allegations often have no real evidence and come down to one persons word against anothers. prosecution dont have to prove their case, only destroy the credabilty of the defendant with the full help and support of the court. they are the easiest cases to secure convictions and make the authorities look good. and with private prosecutions now possible, in many cases theres more money on the table for victim compensation. currently it is too easy to play the system for cold hard cash playing the victim. polygraphs on both sides would make this harder and protect genuine victims of abuse and protect the innocent from a life of hell. they could also help clear innocents and give them back their lives. (albeit mentally scarred and in need of much help and support to resettle and recover). its not polygraphs that are the problem, it is when and how they are conducted and how the results are used. clearly in many organisations people are abusing their privileges and/or not making use of honest and well trained, professional examiners. clearly polygraphs are being used against subjects already rejected or marked out as someone they wish to remove by one person in the chain of command but who must provide "valid" reason for this to their bosses. any more than three questions requiring a simple yes or no, one word answer (beyond the control questions) is simply no less than a desperate fishing trip by those overseeing the exam trying to find anything they can use against the subject for their own ends. this should not be used an excuse to seek to pour scorn on the use of polygraphs. dig deeper. dig deeper too when anyone says that polygraphs can be beat and ask: has that individual actually got proof that they themselves did either beat the polygraph, or they have been witness to such an event, and can they provide the proof? and when was this? and was it an analogue test or computerised? dont rely on hearsay and missinformation like russ. dont even take my own word for it as someone who took a properly conducted polygraph in my own home, off my own back, without coercion, without dictating the test questions to the examiner and passed. i urge you to do your own research.