The use of polygraphs, voice stress analyzers and forensic tests in sensitive areas, such as the interrogation of suspects in criminal cases, trials recruiting (e.g., the FBI), insurance fraud investigations, and interrogations of current or potential employees raise some ethical questions. In particular, the desirability of compelling or coercing people to undertake such testing needs to be examined. The use of the polygraph also raises the larger question: whether we want to live in a society dominated by this type of testing. Voice stress analyzers, unlike the polygraph, are 98% accurate. These devices are so efficient and accurate that many government agencies now use them. The major problem in our criminal justice system today is prosecutorial misconduct, which involves withholding information to prosecute people known to be innocent. The latter means that around 20% of our two million prisoners have not committed any crime. Despite this inherent difficulty in the relationship between psychology and law, the forensic psychologist can assist a court or investigation by providing expert advice on aspects of behavior that will increase the likelihood that the outcome will be correct; (i.e. it can help avoid miscarriages of justice). Forensic psychology, voice stress analyzers and polygraph tests both in the area of ​​mental health and other broader areas of behavior have a body of knowledge of great value to the justice system; however, these issues have raised much controversy regarding its validity in the justice system. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The validity of polygraph exams for detecting deception has long been a controversial issue. Since the development of polygraph techniques nearly 80 years ago, their use both inside and outside the federal government has been the focus of numerous judicial opinions and, also, legislative and executive debates. 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 tells a lie, the fear of being discovered causes uncontrollable reactions in these physiological areas, which the polygraph indicated with inked lines on a moving roll of paper. Polygraph exams were approved as a way to determine the guilt of criminal suspects, to exonerate innocent suspects, to protect national security, and to maintain the honesty of employees. At the same time, polygraph exams have been criticized for providing inaccurate and misleading information, for failing to detect safety risks, for interfering with the rights of private citizens, and for lowering employee morale. At the heart of the controversy over the use of the polygraph exam is the question of its validity: Does the polygraph test actually identify sincere and insincere people? The most obvious concern is that lie detectors don't actually tell you whether the subject has lied but rather act on the physiological responses recorded during a person's interrogation. An example of where polygraphs can give incorrect results is when nervous people are being tested. A person with a nervous disposition may exhibit galvanic responses, which can be interpreted as indicating that the person is lying when he or she answers questions truthfully but feels stressed. Others are able to beat the machine oftruth. One method may be for a person to state a proposition numerous times until the person accepts its validity and consequently passes a lie detector test (e.g., the earth is square, the earth is square). When courts have been called upon to resolve disputes regarding the use of polygraph examinations, they have had to consider both the validity of the techniques and whether its use, while valid, interfaces with other values ​​that the law seeks to protect. Indeed, for many years, the leading case on the admissibility of new scientific evidence (Frye v. United States) was a case on the admissibility of polygraph evidence, and the opinion centered on the question of validity. The question of how a court should decide 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 puzzling. The case of Frye v. United States involved a 19-year-old defendant convicted of robbery and murder. Before the trial, a well-known psychologist and one of the originators of the polygraph test, Dr. William Marston, administered a systolic blood pressure test to detect deception. Dr. Marston determined, based on this test, that Frye was truthful when he denied involvement in the robbery and murder. The trial judge, however, refused to allow Dr. Marston to testify about the exam or to conduct a re-examination using the blood pressure test in court as exculpatory evidence had not been admitted. The appeals court, however, agreed with the trial court's initial ruling. The court held that the systolic blood pressure deception test was validated only by experimental evidence and was not based on a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery. ." The decision stated that, while courts will go to great lengths to admit expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the things from which the inference is made must be sufficiently stable to have gained general acceptance in that particular field to which it belongs. Just when a scientific principle crosses the line between experimental and demonstrable is difficult to define." Ironically, Frye's conviction was later overturned when another man confessed to the crime, thus providing Frye with more confirmation. convincing of his denials of guilt. the case, however, and the recent discussion of the facts of the case indicate that Frye was, indeed, guilty. Marston's crude polygraph examination, therefore, appears to have produced an inaccurate conclusion. The Frye test is still used as a precedent as most federal courts have sought to better define the boundary between the experimental and demonstration phases 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 put forward for refusing its admissibility. This intrudes on the ultimate question, which the Court must determine. It does not meet the criteria of the U.S. Supreme Court test in the Frye case for the admission of scientific evidence. It is hearsay evidence. This is the credit of witnesses who do not suffer from psychiatric illnesses and is therefore not the subject of an expert opinion. Collecting responses is unfair because of the deception and deception required to obtain responses. Testimony is self-serving for the defendant. Fundamental to the legal, legislative and scientific evaluation of polygraph tests is their validity. Yet, despite many decades of judicial, legislative, and scientific discussions, no agreement has been reached on the accuracy of the testsof the polygraph. It is extremely doubtful that polygraphs will ever gain general acceptance within the scientific community. There are simply too many reasons why polygraph results or interpretations of test results could be incorrect. Police departments across the country are purchasing the controversial Computer Voice Stress Analyzer, which according to the manufacturer, can tell when a person is lying simply by the sound of their voice. voice. When a suspect speaks, a computer program "listens" for the slightest vocal changes that, in theory, indicate stress. Critics of the technology, citing government and university research, say the CVSA is little more than an electronic Ouija board with on-par accuracy rates. At best, they say, vocal stress analysis scares suspects into confessing; at worst, it can incriminate the innocent. CVSA results are not admissible in most courts, under the same Supreme Court decisions that generally ban polygraph tests. In the federal legal system, test results are not admissible as substantive evidence. While some US states have allowed test results in criminal trials. States such as California have prohibited the admission of such evidence unless all parties consent to its admission. Other states such as Illinois completely ban the use of such tests in criminal trials. Even so, police officers love it. Cheaper and faster than the polygraph, the CVSA can be used with just 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 Institute for Truth Verification in West Palm Beach, Florida, 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 nearly all "put their polygraph on the shelf," said David Hughes, a retired police captain and the company's executive director. Born out of a Cold War military project, vocal stress analysis was first commercialized in the early 1970s. The company's website is full of testimonials and success stories. An Alabama police department is said to have solved a murder case 14 years later by re-interviewing the prime suspect with the CVSA. The suspect had previously taken four polygraphs given by three different examiners, all of which were inconclusive. Faced with three failed voice stress tests, he broke down and confessed. The researchers reply that in 30 years of studies nothing demonstrates that vocal stress analysis works either in general or in the specific case of CVSA. "The 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 Department of Defense Polygraph Institute CVSA study found that the device performs no better than chance at 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 claims he was arrested in a rape case because of the test , had never heard of a lie detector for vocal stress. But, eager to clear himself of suspicion, he took the test and failed)..