There are enough problems with them that they should be kept out. The technology is not foolproof. Polygraphs, for instance, won't be able to determine those people who honestly believe they are telling the truth but in reality aren't.
They can be an indicator, but not absolute proof, of whether someone is lying or not. Better leave them out of a courtroom. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 12-29-03, 04:20 PM samantha ok but why then do they give people one if they don't plan on using them? Confused
12-29-03, 06:27 PM gatman Good question Sam. Personally I would refuse to take one regardless of the situation. They can not be used so there is no reason for law enforcement to give one except for a fishing exhibition or to rattle the person. They are sometimes used by employers before or during employment. Can't say I think that should be allowed either.
12-29-03, 07:09 PM honilov No, lie detectors should not be legal in court. There's no way in **** that they can detect if a person is lying or not. People can program their mind to pass the test.
12-29-03, 07:10 PM AMoore
quote:Originally posted by samantha: ok but why then do they give people one if they don't plan on using them? Confused
I was required to take on as part of the review of data for a security clearance. I don't know whether security clearances are ever denied strictly on the basis of polygraph test results, but sometimes they use them to indicate which areas may be worth following up. Just as a side note, among my co-workers, methods for defeating the polygraph test are common knowledge.
Alan Moore
12-29-03, 08:17 PM DorianGreyed I took 2 polygraphs a long time ago, and both of the 'operators" determined I had committed a certain crime. I didn't. After that, I did some research into polygraph tests. 20/20 did aprogram on it years ago. The industry claims an accuracy rate of 70-95%. I believe that. That is also an inaccuracy rate of 5-30%. Does any reasonable person think that such evidence has any real value? Polygraphs are slightly better than going by the shape of someone's head, but that is about it. (Don't laugh, that used to be a law enforcement tool, with a chart and everything.)
12-29-03, 08:52 PM Kelleygirl In the first place, in order for a lie detector to work, the person must be able to feel a sense of guilt, right? I mean wouldn't there be a problem right away if someone given the test was an amoral psychopath. It wouldn't register a reaction if there was not reaction to be had, correct?
12-30-03, 06:46 AM samantha yes i have heard of certain companys using these for their employes. I thought they were pretty accurate myself but, I never thought of someone not feeling guilty about something effecting the results of a lie detecter test..
12-30-03, 01:37 PM DorianGreyed Another incident happened to a guy in my neighborhood. A known thief, he would steal anything he could. Arrested for breaking and entering (a pharmacy), he was booked and jailed, but not yet really questioned. Somehow, his cell was left unlocked or he was left unattended, and he escaped. He was caught later that day, and questioned immediately. The police were trying to tie him to a string of drug store break-ins. As a test question, used to determine a base line from which deviations would be more easily seen, he was asked if he had been arrested and escaped from jail earlier that day. According to the polygraph operator, who was from another city, and didn't know anything about the case or this guy, the jail escape never happened. The operator told the police that they had the wrong guy, that he had never done anything like that.
Polygraphs are about as useful and as accurate as mood rings.
12-30-03, 02:25 PM samantha Wow that is way off base...thanks Dorian
12-30-03, 02:50 PM Kelleygirl I had a friend who had to give lie detecter tests for companies who had employees who directly handled cash. He said that if you're raised with a guilt complex to begin with, it'll show up (rightly or wrongly) on these tests. And after conducting this tests for years, he noticed that overwhelmingly Catholics and Jews seemed to show up "guilty" more than others--not that they were--but they were shaking before the machine was turned on. Just thought that was kinda interesting.
12-31-03, 07:00 AM Fritzzs DG is 100% correct....
Any company who ask you to take a test is way off base....and..... you cannot be forced into one...and.... if they take repercussion, they can be held libel...
A few years back I was a Yatch Delivery Captain, and a new owner came in to the marina, and wanted everyone to take a test...In one day, he started out with over 30 employees , at the end of the day he had none....
Damn near lost his butt.....
12-31-03, 08:40 PM samantha Yes but doesnt some companys requite them before you can work there? If so are they allowed to do this then?
01-01-04, 07:06 AM Fritzzs Just in case someone misinterpets my posting, all, ALL of the employees refused the test and quit...
01-05-04, 02:46 PM samantha So they can not FORCE you to take the lie detecter test BUT you have to quit your job or get fired if you don't ? Isn't that kinda the same thing then? How can this be when its not even a legal test in court? Confused
01-05-04, 03:48 PM coldfuse Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. A private employer cannot force you to take a polygraph, just as you cannot force that employer to retain you if you refuse the test.
In other words: take the darned test if you want to keep your job!
01-05-04, 04:23 PM samantha Alls im saying is why take a test if its not admissable in court?
01-05-04, 07:02 PM frankvan As unreliable as they are and inadmissable in court doesn't mean they can't be used to screen job applicants. An employer might have several applicants for a single job opening, if one of those is willing and the other refuses to take a polygraph test, which do you suppose would likely be hired as a cashier? In many criminal investigations, also they can prove useful for purposes of screening among possible suspects. Family members who might otherwise come under suspicion are often asked, or volunteer, to undergo polygraph tests in order to speed up the investigation.
01-05-04, 09:42 PM AMoore
quote:Originally posted by samantha: Alls im saying is why take a test if its not admissable in court?
The evidence thus gathered is not admissible for several reasons -- your freedom from self-incrimination for one, the unreliable character of the test for another, and most of all because of the fact that jurors may be fooled by the name "lie-dectector" into thinking the test actually detects lies. What is tested is a whole battery of parameters, including pulse, breath rate, skin conductivity, blood pressure and others. These are continuously monitored and recorded (as a series of steady or wavy lines on a long sheet of paper, whence the other name, polygraph. The underlying persumption is that the subject, who is presumably otherwise undisturbed, will have different physiological responses to issues that are meaningful to him than to those in which he is disinterested. The test will produce a false result if the examiner inadvertantly suggests to the subject something to which the subject has a strong response, and which is not necessarily related to the matter at hand. For example, the examiner might use the name of the subject's childhood sweetheart in a question about some more current event, and get a very marked response. Alternatively, the subject might have taken valium before the test, and not respond in any noticeable way to any issue the examiner brought up.
If, on the other hand, the subject is willing to co-operate, and the examiner does not inadvertantly set off any irrelevant reactions, the results may be useful, even if not as evidence for use in court.
Alan Moore
01-05-04, 10:53 PM methos Lie Detecter Test
quote:Originally posted by coldfuse: Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. A private employer cannot force you to take a polygraph, just as you cannot force that employer to retain you if you refuse the test.
In other words: take the darned test if you want to keep your job!
Actually, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (passed in the late 80s) says that employees in the private sector cannot be forced to take a polygraph before or during employment, and that, although a business can that request an employee submit to a polygraph, it cannot fire or even discipline that employee for refusing to do so.
The act does not apply to government jobs.
Polygraphs are, under some circumstances (which vary by state), admissible in court. I don't see much use in them, because, as several have pointed out, their failure rate is fairly high. What hasn't been pointed out is that their false positive (i.e. indicating that a person is lying when they are being truthful) rate is higher than their false negative rate, which makes them even worse for someone accused of a crime.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 3476 | Location: Colfax, WA--the home of the world's largest chain-saw sculpture!! | Registered: 06-03-02
