我國刑事訴訟法第161-1條：「被告得就被訴事實指出有利之證明方法。」其所謂之證明方法是否包括測謊結果？有關測謊之文獻，學界多半集中在「不正訊問方法」、「心理檢查說」、「違憲說」、「供述」或「非供述」證據等之討論。我國實務上亦肯認經被告同意施測之測謊結果具證據能力。然，近年來國內外案例皆有出現被告主動要求測謊之情形，並主張以通過測謊之結果作為被訴事實有利之證明，致使實務界對於測謊結果多採肯定說之態度起了變化，尤以質疑測謊結果不具「再現性」，而否定其證據能力之最高法院判決，殊值重視。本文爰以國內外判例，比較各國對於測謊之評價，並就「再現性」之問題發現，建議重新評估測謊之證據能力，以解除其在法律上之應用與疑義。

According to the Article 161-1 of Taiwan Criminal Procedure Code, the defendant can propose advantageous methods for the accused fact. Does it include polygraph?Discus sions in regard to polygraph evidence in the past mostly focused on 'unjust interrogation', 'psychological examination', 'anticonstitution', 'oral-confession' and 'non-oral-confession' evidence, etc. Practically, the court admits the polygraph's report as evidence as long as defendants agree to be tested by polygraph. However, in recent years, there have been many cases showing that defendants voluntarily ask for undergoing examination of polygraph, and then contend the report of passing polygraph examination as advantageous proof which results in the court's positive attitude about polygraph starting to change. On the other hand, a doubt of polygraph examination having no identical results each time appear and its evidence permissibility starts to face challenge from the decisions of the Taiwan Supreme Court that is worth paying much attention to. This paper, thus, cites domestic and foreign cases and compares each country's evaluation of polygraph. In addition, along with the mentioned question of 'repeatedly identical result', we further suggest re-accessing the qualification of polygraph in order to settle its application and legal status.