Ethical Issue Of The Use Of Polygraphs, Forensic Testing And Voice Stress Analyzer

In sensitive areas (such as recruitment processes, e.g. The use of polygraphs, voice stress analyzers, and forensic testing in sensitive areas such as the questioning of suspects in criminal cases, recruitment processes (e.g. It is necessary to consider whether or not it is appropriate to coerce people into taking such tests. Polygraphs raise the question whether we would like to live in an environment where these tests are dominant. Contrary to polygraphs, voice stress analyzers are 98 per cent accurate. Many government agencies use these devices because they are accurate and efficient. Our criminal justice system faces a major problem with prosecutorial misconduct. It involves the concealment of information in order to bring those innocents to trial. In the end, 20 percent our two-million inmate population has not committed a crime. The relationship between psychology, law and the courts is difficult. However, a forensic psychologist who has a strong understanding of human behaviour can help bolster the chances of achieving favourable outcomes by providing an expert opinion. Can help to avoid miscarriages. This knowledge is very valuable for the justice system.

It has been a contentious issue for many years whether polygraphs are effective in detecting deception. Since the introduction of polygraph techniques in the Federal Government almost 80 year ago, they have been the topic of many judicial opinions. They also have been debated by the executive and legislative branches. Polygraphs or lie-detectors are instruments that measure autonomic nervous systems responses. These include blood pressure, heart rate, respiration and galvanic reactions. The polygraph indicates these uncontrollable physiological reactions when someone tells a falsehood. Polygraph tests have been approved for a variety of reasons, including to determine the guilt or innocence of criminal suspects. In the past, polygraphs have been criticized by some for providing incorrect and misleading information. They also claim that they do not detect security risks and interfere with private citizens’ rights. Polygraph examinations are controversial because of their validity. Can a polygraph test tell the difference between a truthful person and liar?

The biggest concern is that lie detectors are not able to tell if a person has lied. They rely instead on the physiological reactions recorded when a questioning takes place. When nervous people are tested, polygraphs may give incorrect results. When a person is nervous, they may show galvanic signals that can be misinterpreted as lying. Others can defeat the lie-detector. The person can state the proposition many times, until they accept it and pass a test. The earth has a square shape.

In deciding disputes involving polygraph examinations courts must consider the validity of the technique and whether the use, no matter how valid, is compatible with the other values the law seeks protect. Frye was the leading case for the admissibility novel scientific evidence. Its opinion focused on validity. The Frye test has come under scrutiny in recent times because of the debate over how courts will decide whether a scientific technique is valid.

Frye was a case in which a 19-year old defendant had been convicted of robbery as well as murder. Dr. William Marston – a famous psychologist and one the original polygraph testers – administered a blood pressure test before his trial in order to detect lying.

Dr. Marston concluded, based on this test, Frye had been truthful in his denial of involvement in the murder and robbery. The judge at the trial refused to let Dr. Marston testify regarding the examination, or perform a reexamination involving the bloodpressure test. Frye appealed the conviction he received on grounds that pertinent exculpatory testimony had not be admitted. However, the appeals court agreed with that of the original trial judge. The court found that the systolic BP deception test had only been validated experimentally and that it was not based on any well-recognized science principle or discovery. The exact moment when a principle of science crosses from experimental to demonstrable can be difficult to define.

Ironically Fryes conviction, which was reversed a few years later, came about when another confessed. This gave Frye more evidence that he had not been guilty. The case was not closed, but recent discussions of the facts in the case suggest that Frye is guilty. Marston’s crude, unrefined polygraph test, which was conducted in a hurry, led to a faulty conclusion. Frye is still a precedent used in many Federal courts. Other opinions have been written (in other areas than polygraphs) to try and better define the line between “experimental stage” and “demonstrative stage” of a scientific invention.

The United States has a majority of authorities that are against the admissibility polygraphs. They have a wide range of reasons for doing so.

It interferes with the Court’s ultimate decision. It fails to meet the test set by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Frye Case for admitting scientific evidence. It’s hearsay. This is hearsay evidence. The trickery, deceit and deception used to elicit the answers are unfair. The testimony of the Defendant is purely self-serving.

Validity of polygraphs is a key factor in assessing their legal, legislative, or scientific value. However, despite years of discussion in the judicial, scientific, and legislative realms, no agreement on the accuracy level of polygraphs has emerged. The scientific community is unlikely to accept polygraphs. The results of polygraph tests or their interpretation are flawed for many reasons.

Computer Voice Stress Analyzers are being bought by police departments throughout the nation. According to its maker, the device can determine if a person is telling the truth merely by listening to their voice. A computer program listens to a suspect’s voice for tiny vocal changes that could indicate stress. Citing research by government agencies and universities, the critics of this technology claim that it is no more sophisticated than an electronic Ouija with the same accuracy rate. Voice Stress Analysis, claim critics, is at best a way to scare suspects in order to get them confess. At worst, they argue, it could implicate innocent people. CVSA results cannot be used in court under most circumstances, as they are prohibited by the Supreme Court’s decisions. Federally, the results of tests are not admissible as substantial evidence. In some US states, test results are admissible in criminal cases. California, for example, has prohibited such evidence from being admitted unless both parties agree. Illinois and other states like California have banned the use in criminal cases of this type of testing.

It is still a favorite among police officers. CVSA is cheaper, faster and easier to use than polygraphs. It can be used undercover, on tapes, or in the field. NITV gained 100 new clients between 1999 and 2000. NITV officials have reported that so far this year, nearly 300 departments of police have purchased a CVSA. David Hughes, executive director and retired police captain, said that some departments have purchased several CVSAs, while others “have placed their polygraphs on the shelf”. The voice stress analysis project was originally developed as part of a Cold War-era military program. It was commercialized for the first time in early 1970s.

The website of the company has a wealth of testimonials. A police department in Alabama is reported to have solved an unsolved murder 14 years after the crime by having the CVSA reinterview the suspect. The suspect previously took four polygraphs administered by three examiners. Each was inconclusive. He confessed after three voice stress tests failed. Researchers say that 30 years of research have not proven that voice stress analyses work, either in general or for CVSA. “Voice Stress Analysis is a Fraud.” David T. Lykken said that it has no validity. He is an emeritus psychology professor from the University of Minnesota Minneapolis, and the author of “A Tremor In The Blood: Uses And Abuses of Lie Detector.”

In a 1996 Department of Defense Polygraph Institute CVSA study, the device was found to be no more effective than chance at detecting lies. The test would be just as accurate if you guessed or flipped a coin. This study led the Department of Defense to stop using voice stress test. Vincent Sedgwick said he was charged with rape after taking the test. In 1996, Henderson, Nev.’s man, never heard of the voice stress lie-detector. To clear his name, he decided to take the test. But he failed. Sedgwick explained that, after the test was completed, “the examiner” told him it appeared as if he had lied. “I’m shocked. “I was shocked. I didn’t realize until much later that the CVSA test results were a fake. Henderson police stated in court documents that the arrest had been based on other evidence than CVSA. Sedgwick’s charge of being an eyewitness to a rape was thrown out by the court for lack or evidence. NITV claims that its CVSA has a 98 per cent accuracy rate, but officials at the company admit that this figure is based solely on the anecdotes of satisfied customers.

The United States of America’s, England’s and Scotland’s legal systems use forensic psychologists to provide a range of services that go beyond mental health. When a forensic psychologist is used only to provide mental health opinion, it can close off valuable information sources and evidence. Psychology is the science of behavior (not just the pathology) and this vast knowledge base allows legal professionals to use a range of tools and techniques.

Australia has not seen this yet. These issues are highly controversial in Australian courts, but courts that refuse to admit psychological information deny themselves access to valuable information for the legal process. Though both law and psychology deal with human behavior closely, the difference is that psychology sees the world in infinite shades, whereas criminal laws see it in black-and-white – guilty or not. This is how most criminal justice systems respond and view behaviour. This is not the case in all criminal legal systems. There is one exception: The Scottish system allows for a “not proven” third verdict. The Scottish legal system recognizes that there can be gray areas when it comes to human behavior, and that an easy guilty or unguilty model may not be adequate. Civil law recognizes the grayness in human behaviour more, especially when it comes to concepts like contributory negligence.

Even though the relationship between law and psychology is difficult, a forensic psychological expert can help a court by providing an opinion that increases the likelihood of obtaining the right outcome. Can help to avoid miscarriages. The justice system can benefit greatly from forensic psychology, both in mental health and other areas.

The validity and accuracy, as well as the overall validity, of polygraphs, voice stress analysers, and forensic testing in questioning criminal suspects, among others, are hotly debated. It is necessary to consider whether or not it is appropriate to coerce individuals to take part in such tests. These devices raise a broader question about whether people would want to live in an environment where such testing is the norm.