My Answer to Question B:
Just as video arraignments have become the rule, rather than the exception, up in Aroostook County, Maine, in order to reduce transportation and labor costs and provide more secure conditions for the judge, the accused and others concerned with arraignments, so too should a concentrated effort be made to develop a tamper-proof, fool- and intellectual-proof “lie detection system” to help reduce the enormous expenses associated with the ponderous bureaucracy of the modern court system.
The primary benefits of such technology would be to ease the psychological burden on juries as they judge fellow humans as flawed as themselves. No one wants to incarcerate innocents and most do want to punish the guilty. It's the area of belief in an individual's innocence that bothers most jurors. Take away the fear of wrongful convictions and I think we'd see a vast improvement in the quality of jurisprudence meted out in our civil and criminal courts.
I concede that such a universal system would not be without new problems for “the system.” We lack the space to incarcerate prisoners as it is. Almost all non-violent felonies are pleaded down to house arrest these days. Misdemeanors are almost universally sentenced to probation for various periods sometimes accompanied by monetary retribution. Prosecuting attorneys would of necessity have to find new and better ways of obtaining convictions on the thinnest of circumstantial evidence (although I will note that recent advances in DNA technology have reduced the opportunities for retention of innocents in jail if convicted unfairly on blood or other human biological evidence. Defense attorneys would find it even more difficult conjuring up shadows of “reasonable doubt” to confuse a jury with if the jury could view the results of such an electronic lie detection system for themselves to determine the truth of the matter.
Finally, such a system could well and truly end the seemingly endless appeals process that seem to accompany convicted felons to penitentiary. Tough to argue unfair trial issues that potentially influence a judge and jury of ones peers if the technology allows for no intervention by biased third parties to the process.
But, I could be wrong about all of this. I'm fallible and I tend to prevaricate.