leibowde84
Veteran Member
How so?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump Admin. to use Lie Detectors on Staff
- Thread starter leibowde84
- Start date
I was being snarky in a 'sauce for goose/gander' kind of way not saying that the results would be meaningful. The point being 'do unto yourself before you do unto others'. I also think that this would cause the entire effort to vanish into nothingness.
I didn't vote because I didn't find either of the options satisfactory.
The DOD, CIA, FBI, DEA, OIG, and ATF routinely use polygraph tests for pre-employment screening and security investigations. I'd say that there is some slight evidence that suggests that under ideal conditions, where (inter alia) the number of suspects is narrowed down to a few (in order to avoid a large percentage of false positives), and the control question technique is used in specific-incident testing, polygraph results are not uninformative. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine looked at 50 of the highest quality laboratory studies, and found that measures of sensitivity (the percentage of deceptive examinees judged to be deceptive) vs. false positive rates clearly demonstrate an accuracy well above chance, with a median accuracy index of 0.86: https://www.nap.edu/read/10420/chapter/7#122
Of course, there is currently no polygraph test from which one can deduce a person's guilt or innocence of a crime. Under the best of circumstances, polygraph results can only be considered one piece of circumstantial evidence.
In US v. Scheffer, Justice Stevens argued against the constitutionality of Military Rule of Evidence 707, which specifically excludes polygraph evidence in court martial proceedings, and against per se rules (which most states have) prohibiting admissibility of polygraph evidence in civilian courts, on the grounds that such rules are inconsistent with the “flexible inquiry” that trial judges are allowed under Daubert. Justice Kennedy reiterated the incongruity “between the Government’s extensive use of polygraphs to make vital security determinations and the argument it makes here [in Scheffer], stressing the inaccuracy of these tests.” The Employee Polygraph Protection Act expresses this same cognitive dissonance about polygraph tests: EPPA generally prohibits most private employers from using polygraph tests for pre-employment screening or inflicting adverse consequences for refusal to take such test. But EPPA allows polygraph tests to be used for pre-employment screening of certain security and pharmaceutical company applicants, and when certain employees are “reasonably suspected” of specific economic crimes such as theft or embezzlement. In essence, the government and some private employers may use polygraph results or even less reliable criteria to discipline, fire or discriminate in hiring someone, but the individual cannot use polygraph evidence for rebuttal purposes in his defense. Well conducted polygraph tests are certainly more scientific than psychiatric diagnoses, which are hurled around in courtrooms every day.
In any case, there's no telling what sort of techniques the White House might use to try to identify leakers. I am unaware of any leaks that have harmed the US strategically--other than Trump's leak of classified info to the Russians. To my mind, the other leakers have been doing a public service.
The DOD, CIA, FBI, DEA, OIG, and ATF routinely use polygraph tests for pre-employment screening and security investigations. I'd say that there is some slight evidence that suggests that under ideal conditions, where (inter alia) the number of suspects is narrowed down to a few (in order to avoid a large percentage of false positives), and the control question technique is used in specific-incident testing, polygraph results are not uninformative. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine looked at 50 of the highest quality laboratory studies, and found that measures of sensitivity (the percentage of deceptive examinees judged to be deceptive) vs. false positive rates clearly demonstrate an accuracy well above chance, with a median accuracy index of 0.86: https://www.nap.edu/read/10420/chapter/7#122
Of course, there is currently no polygraph test from which one can deduce a person's guilt or innocence of a crime. Under the best of circumstances, polygraph results can only be considered one piece of circumstantial evidence.
In US v. Scheffer, Justice Stevens argued against the constitutionality of Military Rule of Evidence 707, which specifically excludes polygraph evidence in court martial proceedings, and against per se rules (which most states have) prohibiting admissibility of polygraph evidence in civilian courts, on the grounds that such rules are inconsistent with the “flexible inquiry” that trial judges are allowed under Daubert. Justice Kennedy reiterated the incongruity “between the Government’s extensive use of polygraphs to make vital security determinations and the argument it makes here [in Scheffer], stressing the inaccuracy of these tests.” The Employee Polygraph Protection Act expresses this same cognitive dissonance about polygraph tests: EPPA generally prohibits most private employers from using polygraph tests for pre-employment screening or inflicting adverse consequences for refusal to take such test. But EPPA allows polygraph tests to be used for pre-employment screening of certain security and pharmaceutical company applicants, and when certain employees are “reasonably suspected” of specific economic crimes such as theft or embezzlement. In essence, the government and some private employers may use polygraph results or even less reliable criteria to discipline, fire or discriminate in hiring someone, but the individual cannot use polygraph evidence for rebuttal purposes in his defense. Well conducted polygraph tests are certainly more scientific than psychiatric diagnoses, which are hurled around in courtrooms every day.
In any case, there's no telling what sort of techniques the White House might use to try to identify leakers. I am unaware of any leaks that have harmed the US strategically--other than Trump's leak of classified info to the Russians. To my mind, the other leakers have been doing a public service.