They do not know what plans a spy may be harboring, nor do they know what minor infraction a good worker may have done in the past that causes stress during the test. Using lie detectors to screen workers forces examiners to ask more generic questions or propose hypothetical situations. ![]() Most uses of lie detectors involve examining individuals about a specific crime and in those cases the machines can tell the difference between lies and truth "at rates well above chance, though well below perfection," the panel concluded.īut those cases involve a specific crime or incident where questions can be focused and answers more easily evaluated. People can learn to control those responses, allowing them to "beat" a lie detector, the report said. Lie detectors measure heartbeat, blood pressure and other factors that are known to change when people are under stress, such as when they lie. There is no alternative right now to polygraph testing and that's why it is used in spite of its shortcomings." "If we wanted to catch a spy or an applicant bent on spying, what would we do, what technique would we use to do that. "I would have to ask what tool they have in mind to replace polygraph screening," Horvath said. Frank Horvath, a professor of criminal justice at Michigan State University, said, "If what they're saying is that polygraph testing is not a useful tool in screening because it makes errors, I wouldn't necessarily agree with them.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |