THE EDITOR: Although lie detectors have been around since the mid-20th century, they have never been considered 100 per cent accurate technology. Moreover, they have yet to be allowed by courts as a foolproof method of weeding out liars from truth-tellers during testimony.

Suppose it was as precise as the polygraph manufacturers claim (up to a 90 per cent rate), wouldn't it be accepted by courts as a reliable form of evidence, as opposed to the unreliability of eyewitnesses (52 per cent) and confidential informants, or even the victims who can sometimes be mistaken?

Other than polygraphs, other lie detectors are MRI, fMRI and EEG, which measure brain activity. According to oaklandmri.com, "Polygraph measures reflect complex activity of the peripheral nervous system that is reduced to only a few parameters, while fMRI is looking at thousands of brain clusters with higher resolution in both space and time."

They also found that "experts examining fMRI scans were 24 per cent more likely to spot a lie. This is compared with the results of professional polygraph examiners. Sweaty palms and a racing heartbeat might help you to spot a liar, but the most telltale evidence lies in the brain."

Moreover, "If you are more concerned with structural and functional detail, then MRI or fMRI could well be your choice if you are able to make the considerable investment required. For quicker, affordable and accessible insights about brain function, with a tight temporal resolution, EEG is the method of choice" – imotions.com

Although many organisations in the US, such as the FBI, DEA and CIA, extensively use polygraph tests for job applicants, it is not allowed in other countries. "In the criminal context, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled repeatedly that polygraph evidence is inadmissible because it is unreliable, is a form of oath enhancement and the bolstering of credibility, is hearsay, and is good character evidence" – justice.gc.ca

There is new research by Marion Oswald and Kyriakos Kotsoglou of Northumbria Law School in the UK.

"We are already on the slippery slope with regards to the polygraph," says Kotsoglou. He calls it zombie forensics and argues that the polygraph will give society a false sense of security based on an unscientific method.

"This becomes a threat in terrorism," he says. "A false sense of security could have literally fatal consequences."

As the TT Parliament debates the use of the polygraph in deciding whether to employ law officers and civil servants, why stop there? Why not make it mandatory for everyone, from the President to parliamentarians, to take the test before taking their oath of office? After all, aren't they privy to sensitive information that could compromise the nation's security?

If they cannot pass the same test they are forcing on other government employees, shouldn't they set an example to the country by voluntarily submitting to the polygraph, the EEG, or even the fMRI? Not only will brain scans utilising EEG or MRI determine their integrity, but they could al