Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
The legal status of polygraph interrogation and associated lie detector tests has been the focus of many forensic psychologists interested in understanding how the different physiological indices recorded during the tests could be used to determine the guilt or innocence of an individual. At the core of this debate is whether the results of the various indices that make up a lie detector test (e.g., blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and skin conductivity) could be presented as evidence in a competent court of law or judicial jurisdiction, particularly in criminal cases (Bartol & Bartol, 2016). But while the debate is ongoing, it is important to note that lie detector tests are not limited to the criminal justice system. On the contrary, these tests are used in private practice in the United States and elsewhere in the world, though their application differ based on prevailing legal requirements (Crighton & Towl, 2014). The present discussion forum aims to not only compare how lie detector tests are used in the private sector and in the criminal justice system, but also to provide a position on their necessity for people intending to have a career in the police or in the private sector.
Lie detector tests are used in both the criminal justice system and the private practice to know whether a subject is being deceptive during the course of interrogation or screening. In both contexts, “the belief is that deceptive answers will produce physiological responses that can be differentiated from those associated with non-deceptive answers” (Tarase, Haveripeth, & Ramadurg, 2013, p. 13). However, its use differs across the two settings. In the United States and several other developed countries, for example, lie detector tests have found wide usage as an interrogation tool with terrorism and other criminal suspects. Although some states in America are yet to sanction their use in the criminal justice system, many others are using the tests to interrogate individuals with criminal culpability with the view to establishing the truth (Grubin, 2010). However, it is important to note that lie detector evidence has limited judicial recognition in most courts in the United States, though a few have recognized the results of the tests as an aid to the investigative process (Krapohl, 2013).
In the private sector, lie detector tests are often used to interview or screen candidates for sensitive jobs such as those requiring individuals to interact with national security-related activities. The main objective of such usage is to screen individuals on certain desirable characteristics, such as the ability to keep secrets. However, it should be noted that the United States law prohibits employers in private practice “from requiring or requesting an employee or job applicant to take a lie detector test” (Crighton & Towl, 2014, p. 358). Nevertheless, the law permits private employers to use the lie detector tests on employees who are justifiably suspected of involvement in a workplace vice, such as theft of resources and embezzlement of funds.
In other countries, lie detector tests are often used in the criminal justice system to detect deception and induce the guilty to confess to their crimes. Indeed, some advocates have argued that the tests can be used to discriminate between the innocent and the guilty in the criminal justice system, replace the third degree techniques used in interrogations, narrow down the field of inquiry for the police, as well as check the veracity of the statement of a witness (Tarase et al., 2013; Tufte, 2006). Some of these roles cannot be replicated in private practice due to legal challenges. Additionally, unlike in the criminal justice system where examinees have no specific rights that determine exposure to the tests, subjects in private practice “have a number of specific rights, including the right to a written notice before testing, the right to refuse or discontinue a test, and the right not to have test results disclosed to unauthorized persons” (Crighton & Towl, 2014, p. 341). This difference limits the use of lie detector tests in private settings.
In my view, it should be a requirement for people to take a lie detector test before they take up important positions either in the private sector or as police officers. The justification of this choice is nested on the fact that a lie detector test has the capacity to detect deception if it is applied professionally, thus it can be used to ensure that only those individuals who tell the truth are selected to join these important sectors of the economy (Tarase et al., 2013). However, several issues need to be addressed before people can have full confidence in the whole process. One of the issues concerns the fact that it may be difficult to ensure that an individual being subjected to a lie detector test is able to achieve complete physical and mental relaxation to ensure the validity and reliability of the test by guarding against “false” deceptions (Tarase et al., 2013). Another issue relates to the credibility and/or authenticity of those charged with the responsibility of administering the test. Some administrators may lie that an individual has failed the test for private gain or to eliminate competition (Grubin, 2010). If these issues are addressed, lie detector tests should be made a requirement for individuals who aspire to become police officers or to hold a position in the private sector.
References
Bartol, C.R., & Bartol, A.M. (2016). Current perspectives in forensic psychology and criminal behavior (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Crighton, D.A., & Towl, G.J. (2014). Forensic psychology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
Grubin, D. (2010). The polygraph and forensic psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 38, 446-451. Web.
Krapohl, D.J. (2013). Polygraph principles: A literature review. Polygraph, 42(1), 35-60. Web.
Tarase, G.M., Haveripeth, P.D., & Ramadurg, M.S. (2013). Scientific and legal procedure of polygraph test. Journal of Bio Innovations, 2(1), 5-16. Web.
Tufte, E.R. (2006). Beautiful evidence. Oxford, United Kingdom: Graphic Press.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.