Lie detection can be great as a segway, or an introduction to
more in-depth case analysis, but this should be under the condition that
there is more than just information discovered through lie detection.
Basically, lie detection should not be used as a sole source of information
and taken as true evidence. A machine can have an equal opportunity at
providing poor judgement. We also have to consider previous forms of lie
detection (in a historical context) to further elevate the fact that lie
detection can be unreliable and even unethical. Focusing on the idea that
machines cannot justify a claim in regards of if someone is guilty or not, as
well as moral standpoints, this essay will look at lie detection techniques
with a critical mindset.
Historically, lie detection methods were heavily reliant on the
belief that something higher would protect a suspect who is innocent while
revealing who is guilty, both being agonizing and painful regardless. If
anyone reaches their hand into boiling water, it is bound to hurt. How can
a belief be a solid piece of evidence for a crime? A simple injury could
cause an injury to heal slowly, that would mean that they are guilty
regardless of if they really are innocent. Belief in technology — such as
polygraph tests — also has to rely heavily on belief, but a belief that is
built up over time.
Police have become confident in their ways, thinking that a lie
can be detected through observation of a person. This may be true to a
degree, sometimes we behave differently under the circumstances that we
are not being truthful, but our behaviors can be explained when we are in
a stressful environment that would deviate from how we typically act.
Thinking back on Michael Crowe: if he was subject to a polygraph test,
would he have passed given the circumstances? Michael had been
broken down to an extreme, and his stress could explain faulty results.
But I digress, if someone believes that their methods are accurate and
apply them regularly then they should continue to believe in them when
given “successful” results. Specific verbal and nonverbal communication
does not entirely mean that someone is lying, they could simply be
uncomfortable or afraid.
It should be considered unethical to use lie detection methods to
support a conviction given these hypothetical circumstances (applicable to
many others). We can consider how interrogation techniques are
sometimes used to elicit a confession, similar to how someone may use
several lie detection techniques to prove guilty, or even the authorities
believing that their nonverbal action-reading is on par with the truth. A
polygraph result does not align with anything moral and may lead
someone innocent into the justice system. Rather than being something
that could provide them with relief, it creates false evidence against them.
The overuse of lie detection methods —even the abuse of it — is
irresponsible and puts people into danger just as much as they could not.