Introduction
Nowadays, in certain countries like the USA, Belgium, Turkey and others, lie detectors or polygraph is commonly used in lawsuits or criminal trials as an extra tool for solving crime cases. Lie detector tests used to figure trustworthiness of witnesses, bolster evidence or simply decide whether a suspect is innocent or guilty. However, accuracy of polygraph is highly debatable. Whereas one part of scientific world considers polygraph as a right and useful device other recognize it as a pseudoscience working on the principle of flipping coin. Decision-making on courts based primarily on evidences. It is crucial to evaluate accuracy of such device, because results of polygraph test considered as evidence in courts and can in certain degree influence on adjudication. Moreover, in some states use of polygraph in courts banned or discriminated for the reason of not enough scientific validity. By reviewing and analyzing scientific studies and information about its use in criminal investigation this paper going to show that lie detector is reliable equipment deserving the name of assistant for solving crimes. Furthermore, arguments against polygraph validity will be presented and given counter argumentation.
Main Body
Paragraph 1. Counter argumentation for polygraph invalidity
Polygraph determines deception by monitoring various physiological processes like blood pressure, heart rate, and skin conductivity and their changes during procedure. However, there is no common physiological reaction of organism to deception and some believes that lie detector cannot be universal for all human beings that are the reason examinees take pre-test. According to (Bernhardt 2005) in one of the demonstration tests, where person who is taki...
... middle of paper ...
... showed high validity of polygraph. 10 studies and different polygraph techniques analyzed results of 2,042 real police and private cases attended since 1980 presented polygraph accuracy of 98%. (Ansley 1990) Such a decision was obtained considering confessions, evidence, and judicial disposition and accepting all contradictions as fault of polygraph. (Ansley 1990) Basically if polygraph decision made disagreement with adjudications it considered as failure and this study showed that on 2% of the cases polygraph made mistake. Thus showing imperfection of polygraph for solving crime cases.
Conclusion
The purpose of the paper was to show reliability of polygraph by evaluating scientific studies of polygraph accuracy and applying it for criminal cases. The research was divided into 4 paragraphs with different purposes but with common aim to support polygraph validity.
After reviewing the article “Inside Interrogation: The Lie, The Bluff, and False Confessions”, it became very evident the huge problem with interrogations and false confessions in the criminal justice system is with false confession. Jennifer T. Perillo and Saul M. Kassin crafted three distinct experiments to try and better understand false confessions and how trues the actual numbers in real life are. What Perillo and Kassin were trying to prove is that “the bluff technique should elicit confessions from perpetrators but not from innocents” (Perillo, Kassin 2010). What is called the “Bluff Technique” is an interrogation technique that uses a sort of threat or hint that there is certain proof that a person will think is more of a promise for
This paper will consider eye witness testimony and its place in convicting accused criminals. Psychology online (2013) defines “eye witness testimony” as a statement from a person who has witnessed a crime, and is capable of communicating what they have seen, to a court of law under oath. Eye witness testimonies are used to convict accused criminals due to the first hand nature of the eye witnesses’ observations. There are however many faults within this system of identification. Characteristics of the crime is the first issue that will be discussed in this paper, and the flaws that have been identified. The second issue to be discussed will be the stress impact and the inability to correctly identify the accused in a violent or weapon focused crime. The third issue to be discussed is inter racial identification and the problems faced when this becomes a prominent issue. The fourth issue will be time lapse, meaning, the time between the crime and the eye witness making a statement and how the memory can be misconstrued in this time frame. To follow this will be the issue of how much trust jurors-who have no legal training-put on to the eye witness testimony, which may be faltered. This paper references the works of primarily Wells and Olsen (2003) and Rodin (1987) and Schmechel et al. (2006) it will be argued that eye witness testimony is not always accurate, due to many features; inter racial identification, characteristics of the crime, response latency, and line up procedures therefore this paper will confirm that eyewitness testimonies should not be utilised in the criminal ju...
One of the last types of ways investigators are coached to detect deception is in the behavioral attitudes of a person being interviewed such as being unconcerned or over anxious (Kassin, 2005). The success rate of looking for these cues are very successful in telling if an individual is being deceitful and has surpassed any laboratory tests conducted on the subject. The laboratory test however did reveal some interesting facts. The research showed that people who had training and experience did not score better than the control group who received no training. In fact all individuals scored at the chance level with the people who had training scored just above chance or at the chance level. To check if special training in the detection of deception was more accurate a study ...
Crime is a common public issue for people living in the inner city, but is not limited to only urban or highly populated cities as it can undoubtedly happen in small community and rural areas as well. In The Real CSI, the documentary exemplified many way in which experts used forensic science as evidence in trial cases to argue and to prove whether a person is innocent or guilty. In this paper, I explained the difference in fingerprinting technology depicted between television shows and in reality, how DNA technology change the way forensics evidence is used in the court proceedings, and how forensic evidence can be misused in the United States adversarial legal system.
(Kennedy & Haygood, 1992; Williams & Loftus, 1994), which is worrying considering the growing and substantial body of evidence from laboratory studies, field studies, and the criminal justice system supporting the conclusion that eyewitnesses frequently make mistakes (Cutler & Penrod, 1995; Huff, 1987; Huff, Rattner, & Sagarin, 1986; Innocence Project, 2009; Wells, Small, Penrod, Malpass, Fulero, & Brimacombe, 1998). According to a number of studies, eyewitness misidentifications are the most common cause of wrongful convictions (Huff, Rattner, & Sagarin, 1986; Wells et al., 1998; Yarmey, 2003) and, through the use of forensic DNA testing, have been found to account for more convictions of innocent individuals than all other factors combined (Innocence Project, 2009; Wells, Memon, & Penrod, 2006).
Even those who should have a clear sense of the an interrogation, fail to see the coercion brought upon the suspect that might lead to a false confession, and once a confession has been made, false or true, detectives or police terminates their investigation that could have found potential evidence to exonerate them. Once a confession is obtained, police tend to ‘‘close’’ cases as solved and refuse to investigate other sources of evidence (Leo and Liu) which is why such a high number of innocent people still remain behind bars. Across samples, police-induced false confessions were evident in between 15 and 25% in cases, making it one of the likely leading causes of wrongful conviction (Leo and Liu), but still juries disregard this evidence! Unfortunately, more cases like Rivers are out there. According to the Washington Post, the National Registry ha logged 1,733 exonerating cases of false confession. In one case, a man by the name of Ricky Jackson spent four decades for a crime he did not commit, only to be exonerated by DNA evidence after 40 years. To emphasize, few states, if any at all, courts provides information to the jury regarding how to assess voluntariness, nor do
Baird states " Frye was a 1923 Washington DC case which disallowed the admissibility of polygraph(lie detector) evidence (62)." The Frye standard states:
Many of today’s interrogation models being utilized in police investigations have an impact on false confessions. The model that has been in the public eye recently is the social psychological process model of interrogation known as the “The Reid Technique.” There are two alternatives used by the police today to replace the Reid Technique, one is the PEACE Model and the other is Cognitive Interviewing. These methods are not interrogation techniques like Reid but interview processes.
There has been considerable debate worldwide, regarding the accuracy of eyewitness testimony in the criminal justice system. Particularly, arguments have surrounded wrongful convictions that have resulted from incorrect eyewitness evidence (Areh, 2011; Howitt, 2012; Nelson, Laney, Bowman-Fowler, Knowles, Davis & Loftus, 2011). The purpose of this essay is to consider psychological research about the accuracy of eyewitness testimony and its placement in the criminal justice system. Firstly, this essay will define how eyewitnesses and their testimonies are used within the criminal justice system and the current debate surrounding its usage. Secondly, the impact of post-identification feedback will be used to show the affect on the confidence of a witness. Thirdly, studies around gender related differences will show how a witnesses gender can affect memory recall and accuracy. Fourthly, empirical studies will be used to highlight how a psychological experience called change blindness can cause mistakes in eyewitness identification. Finally, the effect of cross-examination will be used to explore the impact on eyewitness accuracy. It will be argued, that eyewitness testimony is not accurate and highly subjective, therefore, the criminal justice system must reduce the impact that eyewitness testimony is allowed to have. Developing better policies and procedures to avoid wrongful convictions by misled judges and jury members can do this.
In the court of law, eyewitnesses are expected to present evidence based upon information they acquired visually. However, due to memory processing, presenting this information accurately is not always possible. This paper will discuss the reliability of eyewitness testimony, its use in a relevant court case, and how the reasonable person standard relates to eyewitness testimony.
In recent years, the use of eyewitness testimonies as evidence in court cases has been a subject in which various researchers have been interested in. Research suggests that eyewitness testimonies are actually not reliable enough to use as primary evidence in court cases. There have been many cases in which an innocent person gets sent to prison for a crime they did not commit because an eyewitness testified that they were the ones that they saw at the scene of the crime. Researchers’ goal is to improve the legal system by finding out whether eyewitness testimonies should be used in the court of law or not.
The use of eyewitnesses has been a constant in of criminal justice system since its very beginning. Unfortunately, people do not make the best witnesses to a crime. The person may not have seen the actual criminal, but someone that looks similar to them. The witness may lie about what he or she may have scene. Also the witness can be influenced by the police as to who or what they saw at the time of the crime. The witness or victims memory of the person may have faded so that they don’t remember exactly what had seen, which could be disastrous for the accused.
Eyewitness identification and testimony play a huge role in the criminal justice system today, but skepticism of eyewitnesses has been growing. Forensic evidence has been used to undermine the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and the leading cause of false convictions in the United States is due to misidentifications by eyewitnesses. The role of eyewitness testimony in producing false confessions and the factors that contribute to the unreliability of these eyewitness testimonies are sending innocent people to prison, and changes are being made in order to reform these faulty identification procedures.
Whereas the real picture of forensic evidence is unlike what is represented in movies and television shows where a fingerprint or a trace of hair is found, then it’s game over for the criminal. Reality is not as straightforward. As more people are exposed to the unreal forensic world through television and media the likeliness for a wrong conviction increases with juries assuming the evidence involves more science than what it really does, this is known as the CSI Effect. Further education and training is needed for the people of the court, the forensic specialists, and so called experts. The people in courts do not question any of the ‘professionals’ and just trust in their expertise. The court could overcome this perception by requiring explanation of error rates in a forensic field. To do this, testing examiner error rates will be necessary which means further research. Forensic science has such a large effect on the prosecution of suspects, experts have been known to provide questionable and at times incorrect evidence. When a false conviction occurs the true perpetrator is set free. Once realized, the public doubts the justice system and the reliability of the forensic evidence even more. At this point in time, forensic is an inexact
One of the components of Reid approach is training the interrogators to establish whether a suspect is lying or telling the truth by evaluating the nonverbal and verbal behavior during the interview. Many people question the effectiveness of interrogation training in assisting to discern truth from suspects. According Professor Richard Leo, people are poor in drawing accurate judgments of deception and truth (Leo, 2013). The behavior prompts used police are not diagnostic of deception, the investigators cannot differentiate false from truth denials of guilt, and yet they maintain they draw accurate