Polygraph Testing In The Criminal Case Of US V. Frye

United States. In Washington, D.C. the court stated in the Frye v. United States case that expert testimony is only admissible if the science testified is by an expert who is generally accepted within the scientific community. Most courts followed the Fry standard until 1993, when the Supreme Court made its ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals case. Many courts believe that the Frye standard provides greater protection than Daubert standard. There has been many controversies over whether evidence based forensic science should be allowed as evidence in the courtroom. Many people have argued this even before the Daubert case. Forensic science evidence can include fingerprints, bite-mark analysis, and tool mark identification. All of those types of forensic science evidence have been used as incriminating evidence against people in the courtroom. Forensic science evidence can be used in criminal and civil cases. Many states now follow the Daubert standard versus following the Frye standard. The Frye standard was used everywhere prior to the Daubert case. There are still a few states that follow the Frye standard instead of the Dabuert standard. Both cases were extremely important in allowing forensic evidence to be presented in the courtroom. Each case changed the way that forensic evidence is presented and how each bit of evidence is allowed in the

DNA testing was first used in criminal prosecutions in 1985 and is now admissible in all states. (Hails, 184) Scientific and legal communities seem to universally accept the use of DNA as “good” evidence. Questions could arise regarding testing procedures. There are several testing methods that have been proven reliable and easily pass general acceptance and scientific validity tests. This is causes number of Daubert cases questioning DNA to decline. “In most cases, the tests that are used are well established and do not require a separate hearing” (Hails, 160)

Wrongful convictions are common in the court-system. In fact, wrongful convictions are not the rare events that you see or hear on televisions shows, but are very common. They stem from some sort of systematic defect that lead to wrongful convictions such as, eyewitness misidentification testimony, unvalidated or improper forensic science, false confessions and incriminating statements, DNA lab errors, false confessions, and informants (2014). Bringing awareness to all these systematic defects, which result in wrongful, is important because it will better adjust the system to avoid making the same mistakes with future cases. However, false confession is not a systematic defect. It does not occur because files were misplaced or a lab technician put one too many drops. False confessions occur because of some of psychological attempt to protect oneself and their family. Thus, the courts responsibility should be to reduce these false confessions.

Also, due to the Brain scans being “70 to 90 per cent” accurate, this producing a defence for a defendant to argue that the scan in inaccurate, causing the process of scans to be a waste of time. As previously seen In R v Béland the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the results of a polygraph examination are not admissible as evidence. As the test had relied upon ones sweat and heart palpitations which delivered inaccurate results. This has also been seen to be the reason why polygraph examinations were excluded as evidence in the English Criminal justice system. Therefore

With the Pandora’s Box opened, we may find ourselves forced to rediscover morality due to our natural tendencies. This does not mean accepting adult-child relationships. Figure 3 indicates if we are serious about protecting children, then that ultimately requires some level of understanding, which is a problem for most because that is dangerously close to compassion. On the contrary, the risk they pose is the very reason why we need to support pedophiles who do not want to become sex offenders. We all want the same thing. We do not want them to offend nor their potential victims to offend. In 2008, Michael Seto, a forensic psychologist, published a book stating that the onset of pedophilia is right around the stages of puberty, as with any other sexual orientation. I believe we can prevent a greater number of victims if we put more energy into early detection and providing support before the first offense occurs, rather than solely relying on punishment after the fact. We need to be thinking about the children that pedophiles once were and catch them at their vulnerable stages, which are during puberty. There we can find a sense of compassion and support to want to help. In 2014, Margo Kaplan, an associate professor at Rutgers School of Law, wrote an op-ed in New York Times stating that pedophilia is neurologically rooted, supporting Cantor’s research.

Compulsive pedophiles will act upon their urges at any costs despite of the consequences they may have to face. In Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders, a pedophile explains his uncontrollable desire, "I didn't suspend my conscience, I carried right into the action with me . . . if I had believed with all of my mind and heart that the earth was going to open up and swallow me in hell, I would have went ahead and done it anyway." This man was a minister and was convicted for molesting his grandchildren. He knew with all his conscience that it was wrong, yet he would have faced any consequence if it meant he would get to touch a child. The mind of a pedophiles acts similarly to that of a drug addict. Even if they know what the consequences are, they will stop at nothing to get what they desire.

Mainly in criminal act scene investigation, fingerprint machinery progressions have been responding to with arms open. The theory of biological exclusivity has been urbanized and substantiated by erudition and the judges have maintained this authenticity in the case of Daubert. Although the threat of inaccurate condemnation offers equally to ethical and feasible viewpoint on why dependable and legitimate forensic science is so significant, normal expert substantiation creed also dictates its legitimacy as a precondition for tolerability. Also in 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow made it unblemished that adjudicators have a gatekeeping answerability with admiration to expert substantiation. Federal courts as well as the states have comprised Daubert,

    A review of false convictions that involved forensic science and can help identify critical lessons for forensic scientists as they perform testing, interpret results, render conclusions, and testify in court from the national institute of justice.

The murder of Dr. R. W. Brown was a case dealt with changing the court's laws forever. The polygraph test was being implemented as evidence in court by the help of two attorneys; settled on the idea that Mr. Frye was not guilty of the crime committed. At this time, “Dr. William Moulton Marston had barely discovered the systolic blood pressure deception test in 1915" (Weiss). The way the test would work is measurements of the blood pressure would describe a certain trait like fear involved with lying versus a composed demeanor associated with truth. The courts automatically dismissed the idea of using the polygraph test as evidence because of the information that it was unknown within society. Thus leading the court into the Frye Decision.

If flaws in testing techniques become noticeable and extreme action is not taken to control these issues, society will begin to test the validity of “forensics” as a whole. Referring back to the Motherisk case where a lack of education and professionalism took place, people began to question the science of hair testing and the reliability of investigators, and because of this many cases involving this particular laboratory had to be reevaluated (1). Employees in the Motherisk case were not informed that they were considered expert witnesses in the cases they took part in, and part of their job was to also maintain a bias free work zone, these are crucial mistakes which can lead the way for many wrongful convictions (1). The Motherisk case also demonstrated the importance of judges playing an important role in raising issues of reliability of evidence where people in question simply cannot afford it (1). Prior to final decisions judges should have all the evidence regarding the specimen of hair and the pros and cons of assessing this as a valid science (1). Only the best sciences should ever be considered in the courts. In the courts “hard science” should always be picked rather than a “soft science” because it is scientific proof (1). Hair follicle testing may one day become one of the easiest methods of testing, and will allow

In April of 2015, the field of forensic science suffered a major shock after the FBI announced that the hair analysis testimony that it had used to investigate criminal suspects was flawed. legal scholar Tucker Carrington stated that the FBI hair analysis being performed was “magic”, it was considered that because its hair analysis investigations were unscientific. The evidence that was presented on trial was considered to be unreliable. In about 95% of cases it was discovered that analysts stated their conclusion in order to favor prosicuters. False testemonies occurred in over 100 trials, including 32 death penalty cases. But FBI was not done with their announcements, they also revealed that

Across the United States it has been debated, for several years, which standard should be utilized in the court system: the Frye standard or the Daubert standard. It basically comes down to whether expert testimony should be presented in court based on wide acceptance or scientific proof. Both articles explained the Daubert standard as basically a stricter Frye standard, which could also be gathered from their definitions. It is due to the stricter and more outlined restrictions that the Daubert standard should be utilized in the Florida court system. The Daubert standard bases its criteria for expert testimony on proven scientific fact and reliability.

In addition, actions taken as a result of polygraph readings are moderated by the polygraph operator, the probation officer, and whatever other authority that may be involved. As a result, polygraph results that might seem contradictory to the offender’s previous history or current disposition likely won’t be taken at face value. The inaccuracy of polygraphs would be known at least to the “polygrapher trained specifically in the use of the polygraph for the monitoring of sex offenders,” and that human and professional element is what would prevent unjust actions from being taken due to incorrect interpretations of the polygraph (J.B. v. New Jersey State Parole Board). The fundamental misassumption that Ben-Shakhar and even Grubin at times make is ignoring the human, ignoring the leniency and judgement exercised by informed professionals. Because polygraph results aren’t taken literally or without knowledge of the potential shortcomings of it by trained professionals,

A polygraph commonly known as a lie detector is designed to detect deception and false statements. Polygraph measures and records bodily functions such as blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and skin conductivity during questioning of a subject. The theory behind the polygraph machine and examination is that deceptive answers from the subject will produce physiological responses that are different than truthful answers. The polygraph has been surrounded by controversy for years due to its limitations and inaccuracy, and is not considered reliable as evidence in most court cases.

The polygraph test is one of the most controversial criminal investigative techniques of all-time. From the initial years of the invention to today, there is not a consensus about the investigative tool. That is why there are many people for and against the administration of polygraph tests. Therefore, in order to develop a clear picture of the polygraph test the history of the test must be established. Although, there are many sources that have well documented concerns about the invention, the polygraph test is still around after almost 80 years.