The Limitations Of Detection Of Deception Instruments

The term deception means the deliberate act of misleading an individual some may refer to deception as “little white lies.” Deception has long been used in the criminal justice area by officers in the detecting process of criminal cases, and is one of the most commonly used tools in the investigative process. Investigators use deception in the detecting process. This involves misleading criminals during the investigative and interrogative stages, to gather enough information about the

of the lie detector in criminal investigation. John Larson, a “college cop”, student of Vollmer, who built the first lie detector in the Berkeley department, later said that he felt the technique had

There are many instances in which the polygraph is proven to be at fault such as with Cleve Backster. He was a polygraph examiner and believed strongly in the polygraph and its results. Backster one day decided to attach a houseplant that was in his office to the machine. He then would light the plants leaf on fire to see if the polygraph would have a spike in action. To his surprise as he struck the match the polygraph jumped signifying a response (Eells). Instead of considering that the polygraph went off randomly Backster instead assumed the plant had feelings and could even read his mind. This discovery lead to many scientific research projects in which scientists were unable to replicate Backster’s results. Rather than dismiss the event and polygraph as unreliable Backster dedicated the rest of his life to proving his discovery. The polygraph has been drilled into the minds of people as credible that taking it out of the justice system

e Report, for Resource Utilisation, Witness Accuracy and Psychological Methods for Detection and Successful Prosecution.

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.

Determining a false confession proves difficult due to the multitude of dimensions involved. According to Kassin and Wrightsman’s (1985) survey of the literature, there are three main types of false confessions—voluntary, coerced-compliant, and coerced-internalized. Unlike coerced false confessions, voluntary false confessions arise as a result of someone willingly turning themselves into the police with an account of their crime (McCann, 1998). Voluntary false confessions can result from multiple motives, including an internalized need for punishment or to save someone else’s face. In contrast, coerced false confessions directly result from police interrogations. While coerced-compliant confessions are made to avoid interrogation, escape the stressful situation, or achieve some other reward, coerced-internalized confessions emerge when a suspects begins to

Although the Illinois v Gates case eliminated the two-pronged test in favor of the totality of the circumstances test, I believed that courts are really still following the two-pronged test under guise of the totality of the circumstances because the clause of two-pronged test are still in the totality of circumstances test such as the veracity and reliability of informant’s information and the corroboration of

In recent years, there have been multiple high-profile cases of people being exonerated, often by DNA testing, after giving a false confession to a crime they did not commit. People who often fall into this trap are juveniles or those with a diminished mental capacity (Redlich, 2009). DNA testing has helped many innocent people that gave false confessions be free again. This trend brings up the question of how were they able to give a false confession.

Once introduced as evidence, a confession causes a negative chain reaction in the justice system and law enforcers and justice officials often include their biases in their judgment, which leads to justice miscarriage. The process of false confession starts with the law enforcement officials (Leo & Davis, 2011). According to Kassin, Meissner, and ReNorwick (2005), investigators have a high confidence in knowing a true confession but their accuracy is the same as that of the public. The investigators do not see deception but rather they infer

Every time an innocent person is exonerated based on DNA testing, law enforcement agencies look at what caused the wrongful convictions. There are many issues that contribute to putting guiltless lives behind bars including: eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, imperfect forensic science, and more (Gould and Leo 18). When a witness is taken into a police station to identify a suspect, it is easy for their memories to be blurred and their judgment influenced. This can lead the witness to identify a suspect who is actually innocent. Flawed forensic science practice also contributes to wrongful imprisonments. In the past, analysts have been inaccurate due to carelessness, testified in court presenting evidence that was not based

Many individuals do not fully understand the possible consequences of making a false confession or report to detectives. The construction of a false version of events, whether due to

    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.

Human sources, regardless of the organization handling them, go through an extreme vetting process, one that never stops (typically). The individual responsible for vetting sources does so by constantly analyzing the source’s suitability and their susceptibility to foreign influence. Organizations need to take the same approach with individual’s working in positions, which give them access to the US government’s most sensitive information. Too often, employers, such as the CIA, rely on the results of polygraphs to determine whether someone is committing a crime. However, this is a flawed mechanism, example, Ames. The intelligence community needs to place more accountability on supervisors to know their employees and to be able to identify when someone is exhibiting a behavior, which can lead to suitability and susceptibility issues. This is an essential process because people change. Life is unpredictable, and there is no predicting when an individual will have to adapt and overcome a significant negative life experience. Organizations must take it upon themselves to identify significant changes in their employees and ensure they do their due diligence in evaluating the person in

Credibility- Now, I would like to consider myself an expert lie detector, but apparently binge-watching 12 seasons of Criminal Minds in 3 months does not give me those qualifications. So to better inform and assist you, my lovely audience, I did some research, mostly utilizing online materials.

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.