Why not require all criminal suspects to take lie detector tests and then dispense with trials by jury?The Council of Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association states, "It is established that classification of guilty can be made with 75% to 97% accuracy, but the rate of false positives is often sufficiently high to preclude the use of this (polygraph) test as the sole arbiter of guilt or innocence."A "false positive" is an indication of guilt when the subject is innocent. Even with accuracy as high as 97%, the percentage of false-positive results can be 50%, so half of the innocent subjects incorrectly appear to be guilty. For this discussion, please answer the following questions: 1. What do you think we should do away with trial by jury and have the suspect in question take a lie detector test? What would be the advantages and disadvantages? 2. If you were accused of a crime you didn't do, and yet the lie detector test said you did and were sent to prison for the rest of your life, how would you feel? 3. Is it a big deal if the false-positive results are 50%? Why or why not?