Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Kristi Noem Reportedly Warned DHS Employees She's Going to Start Polygraphing Them Over Leaking to the Media [View all]ancianita
(39,646 posts)20. Here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph
...In the 1998 US Supreme Court case United States v. Scheffer, the majority stated that "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable [...] Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion." The Supreme Court summarized their findings by stating that the use of polygraph was "little better than could be obtained by the toss of a coin."[25] In 2005, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals stated that "polygraphy did not enjoy general acceptance from the scientific community".[26] In 2001, William Iacono, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of Minnesota, concluded:
Polygraphs measure arousal, which can be affected by anxiety, anxiety disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), nervousness, fear, confusion, hypoglycemia, psychosis, depression, substance-induced states (nicotine, stimulants), substance-withdrawal state (alcohol withdrawal) or other emotions; polygraphs do not measure "lies".[15][28][29] A polygraph cannot differentiate anxiety caused by dishonesty and anxiety caused by something else.[30]...
In United States v. Scheffer (1998),[69] the US Supreme Court left it up to individual jurisdictions whether polygraph results could be admitted as evidence in court cases. Nevertheless, it is used extensively by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and law enforcement agencies. In the states of Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Delaware and Iowa it is illegal for any employer to order a polygraph either as conditions to gain employment, or if an employee has been suspected of wrongdoing.[70][71] The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA) generally prevents employers from using lie detector tests, either for pre-employment screening or during the course of employment, with certain exemptions.[72] As of 2013, about 70,000 job applicants are polygraphed by the federal government on an annual basis.
Although the CQT [Control Question Test] may be useful as an investigative aid and tool to induce confessions, it does not pass muster as a scientifically credible test. CQT theory is based on naive, implausible assumptions indicating (a) that it is biased against innocent individuals and (b) that it can be beaten simply by artificially augmenting responses to control questions. Although it is not possible to adequately assess the error rate of the CQT, both of these conclusions are supported by published research findings in the best social science journals (Honts et al., 1994; Horvath, 1977; Kleinmuntz & Szucko, 1984; Patrick & Iacono, 1991). Although defense attorneys often attempt to have the results of friendly CQTs admitted as evidence in court, there is no evidence supporting their validity and ample reason to doubt it. Members of scientific organizations who have the requisite background to evaluate the CQT are overwhelmingly skeptical of the claims made by polygraph proponents.[27]
Polygraphs measure arousal, which can be affected by anxiety, anxiety disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), nervousness, fear, confusion, hypoglycemia, psychosis, depression, substance-induced states (nicotine, stimulants), substance-withdrawal state (alcohol withdrawal) or other emotions; polygraphs do not measure "lies".[15][28][29] A polygraph cannot differentiate anxiety caused by dishonesty and anxiety caused by something else.[30]...
In United States v. Scheffer (1998),[69] the US Supreme Court left it up to individual jurisdictions whether polygraph results could be admitted as evidence in court cases. Nevertheless, it is used extensively by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and law enforcement agencies. In the states of Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Delaware and Iowa it is illegal for any employer to order a polygraph either as conditions to gain employment, or if an employee has been suspected of wrongdoing.[70][71] The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA) generally prevents employers from using lie detector tests, either for pre-employment screening or during the course of employment, with certain exemptions.[72] As of 2013, about 70,000 job applicants are polygraphed by the federal government on an annual basis.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
29 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9e602/9e602d96cb69ecdec989c2fb75b09b6f1575acc5" alt=""
Kristi Noem Reportedly Warned DHS Employees She's Going to Start Polygraphing Them Over Leaking to the Media [View all]
BumRushDaShow
Thursday
OP
Nick name her PUPPY KILLER Noem" when we speak about her. The taxpayer is her employer and she wants things kept
Stargazer99
Thursday
#7
Anyone know the actual laws pertaining to polygraphs and federal employees? nt
SomewhereInTheMiddle
Thursday
#11
Sen. Murphy: "The game is clear. We can see it. They're not even hiding it. There is not a rule of law anymore."
Botany
Thursday
#14
Polygraphs are bullshit. It's a scare technique to trick people into confessing.
Oopsie Daisy
Thursday
#22