2006-09-11 09:12:34 · 7 answers · asked by Kikyo 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
But if Law enforcement knows that people can beat the polygraph test, then why do they still requirement before one can gain employment in law enforcement?
2006-09-11 09:26:14 · update #1
I know that law enforcement agencies do not want criminals working for them, but I've heard multiple stories (from police officers no less) that officers have lied on the polygraph test, passed, only to have been found out later on that they lied.
So far the only thing that people have answered is why is it not admissible in court, not my entire question.
2006-09-11 09:36:23 · update #2
Polygraph tests are beatable. Law enforcement knows that, the courts know it. But it does take some training and skill (or a certain type of personality lacking those) to beat one, and most people can't beat them -- in fact most people don't know they can beat them. The threat of failing a polygraph test is where it gets its value, not the actual test. People who have done wrong will avoid taking one if at all possible 'cause they think they'll fail (and they probably will) -- that's why they're required.
2006-09-11 09:16:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Science has not said that polygraphs are 100%, nor near 100% reliable, on a scientific basis (like they have for DNA tests).
Under the state and federal rules of evidence, evidence for court cases MUST be able to proved reliable without question.
Law enforcement is not preparing evidence, they use polygraphes to help them determine reliability/probability someone is telling the truth NOT proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
2006-09-11 16:19:35 · answer #2 · answered by J T 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are not admissable in court since they are not reliable enough and would sway a jury with wrong information at times more than acceptable by a judicial standard.
On the other hand, cops can use lie detectors to find out information that is otherwise unattainable to help them with investigations. Even though polygraphs are sometimes wrong, they are more often than not correct, and so they are a valuable information-seeking tool. They are not reliable enough to be a basis for prosecuting a case in court however.
I didn't explain that very well, lol.
2006-09-11 16:18:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a tactic that law enforcement use. If the person is guilty, they will do anything in their power to avoid taking the tests. An innocent person will jump all over taking a polygraph, it is more for the body language and overall persona to see if a person is guilty or not.
2006-09-11 16:19:41 · answer #4 · answered by bitbee26 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In re the post above, I've heard the basic theory behind beating them is knowing that you can beat them... should work on most cops but a criminal might train himself
However, the reason they're not admissable in court probably has more to do with the fact that it's possible to fail them without lying, just for being nervous.
2006-09-11 16:19:15 · answer #5 · answered by Aleksandr 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YOU CANNOT BEAT A POLYGRAH. they are required for law enforcement because cities do not want criminal minds sneaking in on them and joining the department.
2006-09-11 16:32:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, you're right. WTF is with that anyways?
2006-09-11 16:13:49 · answer #7 · answered by curious 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋