Post 1 Response 2
100-word response/ 1 reference/intext citation
Due 1/31/2025
Schroeder
Legal, scientific, and ethical considerations can prevent polygraph examinations from being admissible as direct evidence in court. Legal considerations are the admissibility rules, legal precedent, and the changes for jury misinterpretation. For example, the Daubert standard clarified that polygraph testing does not meet scientific criteria for it to be valid and reliable for the courtroom—scientific considerations like physiological measures, lack of scientific consensus, and the control question technique. Critics can argue that significant biases are an unreliable measure of the truth. Lastly, ethical considerations like informed consent, misuse of privacy, and abuse can pull into wrongful accusations. Polygraphs are not foolproof but can derive from flawed data.
The reliability of the polygraph in investigative processes can be useful for investigators to evaluate the credibility of anyone involved from witnesses to suspects to victims. Their role in screening, recording, and monitoring can be used for those on parole. However, accuracy is always a concern. Using the polygraph as an interrogation tactic can pressure suspects to be more forthcoming if they feel as if the test will tell the truth if they don’t. Overall, polygraphs are not direct evidence, they can be used with caution to further guide investigations. “The instrument is based on the idea that ordinarily a person is under stress when telling a lie; therefore, physiological responses to psychological stimuli (the questions) are produced that can be detected and measured. They may be interpreted to mean that the subject is telling the truth, that he or she is lying, or the result may be inconclusive” (Osterburg, 2019, p.227).
