Political Cartoons
Influence of Lie Detectors on US Law
The polygraph is used in government agencies throughout America. In the federal government polygraph examinations are formally referred to as a psychophysiological detection of deception (PDD). The CIA has used the polygraph since its invention to catch countless criminals, make sure our spies and soldiers have good motives, and interrogate prisoners of war. When the lie detector is used in the CIA the polygraph examiner ask three kinds of questions to the subject. They ask norm, relevant, and control questions. A norm question is one that the examiner knows the answer to and it has no emotional weight. An example would be, “Are you wearing shoes? “ A relevant question is one with an unknown answer so it is more likely to produce a lie. A relevant question would be, “Have you done any illegal drugs since you turned 18?” A control question is one that examiners ask hoping it will cause an emotional reaction. In the book Gatekeeper by John F. Sullivan, who was a polygraph examiner for 31 years, it says “A known lie is the best of all control questions, the theory being that if a subject does not show any reaction when lying in response to a question, the test is invalid” If there was no emotional response to a known lie then there would be no way to separate the truth from fiction. Without the lie detector, John Sullivan wouldn’t have been able to catch a countless number of double agents. Some double agents were believed to have found a ways to alter their results so they could pass but most attempts at this were futile because the polygraph examiners try to keep up to date with all of the information published on defeating polygraphs. The CIA is just one example of political influences that use the polygraph and find it useful and as Roger E. Middleton said, “We believe the polygraph is an invaluable tool to the private sector. It is cost-effective and reliable.
Even though it sounds like the polygraph would be a tool everyone is for using, there are many people who have been opposed to it. Some people don’t believe this tool is anything more than an inaccurate test which only stands to hinders justice. One of those people was Senator Kennedy. In 1988 he said, “We know that in most applications the device cannot be trusted. It is time to put an end to their unacceptable misuse that unfairly places so many workers’ jobs in jeopardy” He also said that the polygraph tests didn’t detect lies but that they were “inaccurate instruments of intimidation”. Gerald Birdsong, Camden police officer for 12-18 months, doesn’t believe that the results of a polygraph should even be told to a jury in a court of law. He believes that it is unfair to the percentage of people whose polygraph tests are incorrect to have a jury told of the results. His belives the risk of sending an innocent man to jail is too great under those circumstances. More and more limitations and restrictions get put on the use of the lie detector every year because of the doubt that the lie detector itself might be the one telling the lies. There have been a lot of political debates over these very issues
Even though it sounds like the polygraph would be a tool everyone is for using, there are many people who have been opposed to it. Some people don’t believe this tool is anything more than an inaccurate test which only stands to hinders justice. One of those people was Senator Kennedy. In 1988 he said, “We know that in most applications the device cannot be trusted. It is time to put an end to their unacceptable misuse that unfairly places so many workers’ jobs in jeopardy” He also said that the polygraph tests didn’t detect lies but that they were “inaccurate instruments of intimidation”. Gerald Birdsong, Camden police officer for 12-18 months, doesn’t believe that the results of a polygraph should even be told to a jury in a court of law. He believes that it is unfair to the percentage of people whose polygraph tests are incorrect to have a jury told of the results. His belives the risk of sending an innocent man to jail is too great under those circumstances. More and more limitations and restrictions get put on the use of the lie detector every year because of the doubt that the lie detector itself might be the one telling the lies. There have been a lot of political debates over these very issues
Senate Votes for Limits on Polygraph Testing
Special in the New York Times, March 4, 1988
By Irvin Molotsky
WASHINGTON, March 3 – The senate today approved a bill that would sharply limit the use of polygraphs to screen job applicants or to test employees in private industry. The vote was 69 to 27.
In November the House of Representatives approved a version of the bill that goes even further in restricting the use of poylgraphs, or lie detectors, in the workplace. A House-Senate conference is to work out the differences before the bill goes to President Reagan, who threatened to veto the House version.
This is the furthest that legislation restricting polygraphs has gone since the first bill to limit their use was introduced 25 years ago.
The Reagan Administration and many in business oppose a ban on the use of polygraphs, which they say are valuable tools in combating business theft that causes billions of dollars in losses each year.
The tests are viewed as an intrusion on individual liberty by proponents of the ban, which is supported by organized labor, civil liberties organizations and a wide range of members of the Senate..
Senator Kennedy said polygraphs wereused on two million workers last year. Asserting that employees should have the right to refuse to submit to polygraph tests, the Senator said thetests did not detect lies at all but rather were “inaccurate instruments of intimidation”.
“We know that in most applications the devices canot be trusted” Senator Kennedy said. “It is time to put an end to their unacceptable misuse that unfairly places so many workers’ jobs in jeopardy.
An official of the Chamber of Commerce, who opposes the ban, said such regulations were best left to the states. Roger E. Middleton, the chamber’s counsel for corporate policy, said, “We believe the polygraph is an invaluable tool to the private sector. It is cost-effective and reliable." Thosebusinesses that are most subject to theft, such as those in retail, have generally pressed hardest for use of the polygraph.
The House bill, sponsored by Representative Pat Williams, Democrat of Montana, would virtually ban the use of polygraphs altogether in the private workplace. The only exceptions would be for security guards at sensitive installations and employees of pharmaceutical companies with access to controlled substances.
The Senate bill would ban the use of the polygraph in pre-employment and random testing, which Senator Kennedy said “make up 85 percent of the testing being conducted today and for which there is no demonstrable validity."
But the Senate bill would permit the use of a polygraph examination after a theft, with the testing restricted to those who had access to the property and those the employers had reasonable suspicion to believe were involved. Before requesting that an employee be administered the polygraph examination, the employer would have to file a police report, and insurance claim or a report with a regulatory agency.
Under the Senate bill, Mr. Kennedy said, “No employee can be disciplined or dismissed for refusing to take the test or for failing the test without additional supporting evidence of wrong doing."
An employer violating the law in either the Senate or House version would be subject to a fine of up to $10,000. The bill would apply to the 29 states that do not have restrictions on the use of polygraphs, since 21 states and the District of Columbia already have such laws. Those state laws with more stringent restrictions would remain in effect. In addition, collective bargaining agreements with more restrictions on the use of the polygraph would also remain in effect.
By Irvin Molotsky
WASHINGTON, March 3 – The senate today approved a bill that would sharply limit the use of polygraphs to screen job applicants or to test employees in private industry. The vote was 69 to 27.
In November the House of Representatives approved a version of the bill that goes even further in restricting the use of poylgraphs, or lie detectors, in the workplace. A House-Senate conference is to work out the differences before the bill goes to President Reagan, who threatened to veto the House version.
This is the furthest that legislation restricting polygraphs has gone since the first bill to limit their use was introduced 25 years ago.
The Reagan Administration and many in business oppose a ban on the use of polygraphs, which they say are valuable tools in combating business theft that causes billions of dollars in losses each year.
The tests are viewed as an intrusion on individual liberty by proponents of the ban, which is supported by organized labor, civil liberties organizations and a wide range of members of the Senate..
Senator Kennedy said polygraphs wereused on two million workers last year. Asserting that employees should have the right to refuse to submit to polygraph tests, the Senator said thetests did not detect lies at all but rather were “inaccurate instruments of intimidation”.
“We know that in most applications the devices canot be trusted” Senator Kennedy said. “It is time to put an end to their unacceptable misuse that unfairly places so many workers’ jobs in jeopardy.
An official of the Chamber of Commerce, who opposes the ban, said such regulations were best left to the states. Roger E. Middleton, the chamber’s counsel for corporate policy, said, “We believe the polygraph is an invaluable tool to the private sector. It is cost-effective and reliable." Thosebusinesses that are most subject to theft, such as those in retail, have generally pressed hardest for use of the polygraph.
The House bill, sponsored by Representative Pat Williams, Democrat of Montana, would virtually ban the use of polygraphs altogether in the private workplace. The only exceptions would be for security guards at sensitive installations and employees of pharmaceutical companies with access to controlled substances.
The Senate bill would ban the use of the polygraph in pre-employment and random testing, which Senator Kennedy said “make up 85 percent of the testing being conducted today and for which there is no demonstrable validity."
But the Senate bill would permit the use of a polygraph examination after a theft, with the testing restricted to those who had access to the property and those the employers had reasonable suspicion to believe were involved. Before requesting that an employee be administered the polygraph examination, the employer would have to file a police report, and insurance claim or a report with a regulatory agency.
Under the Senate bill, Mr. Kennedy said, “No employee can be disciplined or dismissed for refusing to take the test or for failing the test without additional supporting evidence of wrong doing."
An employer violating the law in either the Senate or House version would be subject to a fine of up to $10,000. The bill would apply to the 29 states that do not have restrictions on the use of polygraphs, since 21 states and the District of Columbia already have such laws. Those state laws with more stringent restrictions would remain in effect. In addition, collective bargaining agreements with more restrictions on the use of the polygraph would also remain in effect.