From my observation of human nature I’d guess a polygraph is less likely to wrongly convict a nervous Nellie than exonerate a pathological liar. Its practical utility in the workplace is ferreting out petty criminals instead of trusting them to be truthful. I note in my own workplace the most anti polygraph are somehow also those I would least trust myself.
That is nonsense.
Judges Rules (and they have changed over time) state : It is… required the police to give a caution when they had reasonable grounds to suspect that a person had committed an offence.
No admission is required.
Cicero, I suspect you and Simple Linctus are at cross purposes. The caution you are talking about from the Judges’ Rules are the warnings given during questioning that you don’t need to talk, can speak to a solicitor, etc.
The caution Simple Linctus is talking about is when you are young, commit a relatively minor first offence, or the like and rather than arrest you and drag you before a court, the police give you a caution and send you home. For the latter, the caution is recorded by police so they know not to give too many of them to you. Largely for that reason, and because it makes no sense to give you a caution for something you didn’t do, they need an admission from you.
Thanks for pointing that out NP.
Given that, I apologise to Simple Linctus.