The use of polygraphs, voice stress analyzers and forensic tests in sensitive areas, such that the interrogation of suspects in criminal cases, recruitment processes (e.g. by the FBI), insurance fraud investigations, and interrogations of current or potential employees raise certain ethical questions. In particular, the advisability of obliging or coercing people to carry out such tests should be considered. The use of polygraphs also raises the broader question of whether we want to live in a society dominated by these types of tests. Voice stress analyzers, unlike the polygraph, are 98% accurate. These devices are so efficient and accurate that many government agencies now use them. The biggest problem in our criminal justice system today is prosecutorial misconduct, which involves withholding information in order to prosecute people believed to be innocent. This latter result means that approximately 20 percent of our two million inmates have committed no crimes. Despite this difficulty inherent in the relationship between psychology and law, the forensic psychologist can assist a court or inquest by giving expert advice on aspects of behavior that will increase the likelihood that the outcome will be correct; (i.e. can help avoid miscarriages of justice). Forensic psychology, vocal stress analyzers and polygraph tests, both in the field of mental health and other broader areas of behavior, have a body of knowledge of major value to the system judicial; however, these questions have raised much controversy over their validity within the legal system. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essayThe validity of polygraph examinations for detecting deception has long been a controversial issue. Since the development of polygraph techniques nearly 80 years ago, their use within and outside the federal government has been the subject of numerous judicial opinions as well as debate at the legislative and executive levels. A polygraph or lie detector is an instrument used to measure autonomic nervous system responses in terms of blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate and galvanic skin response. In theory, when a person lies, the fear of detection causes uncontrollable reactions in these physiological areas, which the polygraph indicates with ink lines on a moving roll of paper. Polygraph examinations have been approved as a means of determining the guilt of criminal suspects, exonerating innocent suspects, protecting national security, and maintaining employee honesty. Polygraph exams have, at the same time, been criticized for providing inaccurate and misleading information, failing to detect security risks, violating citizens' rights, and undermining employee morale. At the center of the controversy over the use of polygraph examinations is the question of their validity: Does a polygraph examination actually identify truthful and non-truthful individuals? The most obvious concern is that lie detectors don't actually tell you whether the subject lied, but rather act on physiological responses recorded when a person is questioned. An example of when polygraphs can give erroneous results is when testing nervous people. AA nervous person may exhibit galvanic responses, which can be interpreted as indicating that they are lying when they answer questions honestly but feel stressed. Others are able to beat the lie detector. One method may be for a person to state a proposition several times until they accept its validity and therefore pass the lie detector test (e.g., the earth is square, the earth is square). When courts have been called upon to resolve disputes over the use of polygraph examinations, they have had to consider both the validity of the techniques and whether its use, however valid, interfaces with other values ​​that the law seeks. to protect. Indeed, for many years, the landmark case on the admissibility of new scientific evidence (Frye v. United States) concerned the admissibility of polygraph evidence, and the opinion centered on the question of validity. The question of how a court should decide the question of the validity of any scientific technique has called the Frye test into question in recent years and makes the problem of establishing judicial standards for assessing validity striking. Frye v. one-year remand convicted of robbery and murder. Before his trial, well-known psychologist and one of the originators of polygraph tests, Dr. William Marston, administered a systolic blood pressure test to detect deception. Dr. Marston determined, based on this test, that Frye was. However, the trial judge refused to allow Dr. Marston to testify about the examination or to conduct a re-examination using the Frye test. blood pressure. Frye appealed his conviction on relevant grounds. exculpatory evidence was not admitted. The appeals court, however, agreed with the trial court's initial judgment, finding that the systolic blood pressure deception test was only validated by experimental evidence and was not based on any scientific principle or discovery. well recognized. "The decision stated that, although courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony inferred from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the elements from which the inference is made must be sufficiently established to have been generally accepted in the particular field to which it belongs. It is difficult to define when a scientific principle crosses the line between experimental and demonstrable. Frye was indeed guilty. The crude polygraph examination conducted by Marston therefore appears to have yielded an inaccurate conclusion. The Frye test is still used as precedent in most federal courts. attempted to better define the boundary between the experimental and demonstrative stages of a scientific innovation The preponderance of authority in the United States is against the admission of polygraph evidence with a Various reasons have been given for refusing its admissibility. This impinges on the ultimate question, which the Court must decide. It does not meet the criteria of the United States Supreme Court's test in Frye for the admission of scientific evidence. This is hearsay evidence. It concerns the credit of witnesses who do not suffer from psychiatric illnesses and is therefore not an appropriate issue for expert testimony. Getting answers is unfair because of the trickery and deception required to get answers. The testimony is of interest to the accused. Their validity is at the heart of legal, legislative and scientific evaluationpolygraph tests. Yet despite several decades of judicial, legislative, and scientific debate, no agreement has been reached on the accuracy of polygraph tests. It is extremely doubtful whether polygraphs will ever be generally accepted within the scientific community. There are simply too many reasons why polygraph results or interpretations of test results can be wrong. Police departments across the country are purchasing the controversial Computer Voice Stress Analyzer, which its manufacturer says can detect when a person is lying simply by the sound of their audio. voice. When a suspect speaks, a computer program "listens" for minute voice changes that, in theory, indicate stress. Critics of the technology, citing government and academic research, say the CVSA is little more than an electronic Ouija board with accuracy rates to match. At best, they say, vocal stress analysis scares suspects into confessing; at worst, it can incriminate innocent people. CVSA results are not admissible in most courts, under the same Supreme Court rulings that generally prohibit polygraph evidence. In the federal legal system, test results are not admissible as substantial evidence. While some US states have allowed test results in criminal trials. States like California have prohibited the admission of such evidence unless all parties consent. Other states, such as Illinois, completely ban the use of such tests in criminal trials. However, the police love him. It is cheaper and faster than the polygraph, the CVSA can be used with a few days of training and without the need to “wire” a suspect. It can also be used in the field, covertly and on tape recordings, according to the National Truth Verification Institute in West Palm Beach, Fla., its manufacturer. Between 1999 and 2000, NITV added 100 new customers. So far in 2001, NITV officials say nearly 300 police departments have purchased at least one CVSA. Some bought several, and almost all "put their polygraph on the shelf," said David Hughes, a retired police captain and executive director of the company. Originating from a Cold War military project, voice stress analysis was first commercialized in the early 1970s. The company's website is full of testimonials and success stories. An Alabama police department reportedly solved a 14-year-old murder case by re-interviewing the prime suspect with the CVSA. The suspect had already undergone four polygraph tests performed by three different examiners, all of which were inconclusive. Faced with three failed vocal stress tests, he broke down and confessed. The researchers counter that there is nothing in 30 years of studies to prove that vocal stress analysis works either generally or in the specific case of CVSA. "Voice stress analysis is a fraud. It has no validity," said David T. Lykken, professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis and author of the book "A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector". "A 1996 CVSA study by the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute found that the device performs no better than chance in detecting deception. In other words, guessing or flipping a coin would be as accurate as the test Based on this study, the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation do not use voice stress tests Vincent Sedgwick says he was arrested in a..