Law enforcement agencies are using a new technology that detects lies through voice stress. However, it is banned in several states because there is no scientific evidence to validate it. Those who advocate it though say that when people are threatened with it many often confess to avoid lying even more. A big issue with these analyzer is that they are super expensive. They run about $11,000 for the analyzer and 6 day training course. Many people compare this to the polygraph machine, but as some people point out it's not as reliable as the polygraph, it just helps sway the investigator in which direction to go.
I personally don't really see the point in this. If your polygraph tests are coming up inconclusive the person is obviously a good liar. I can see where threatening them with some "new" technology could make a bit of a difference, I don't see it being much more than a scare tactic to make them confess. I did find the article very interesting though that they are trying to come up with better ways to catch criminals.
http://www.policeone.com/investigations/articles/48102-Police-Using-Voice-Stress-Analysis-to-Detect-Lies/
I personally don't really see the point in this. If your polygraph tests are coming up inconclusive the person is obviously a good liar. I can see where threatening them with some "new" technology could make a bit of a difference, I don't see it being much more than a scare tactic to make them confess. I did find the article very interesting though that they are trying to come up with better ways to catch criminals.
http://www.policeone.com/investigations/articles/48102-Police-Using-Voice-Stress-Analysis-to-Detect-Lies/
This was a very interesting article. I posted the website about body language a week ago and it kind of reminded me of that. The voice stress analysis I believe would be just another way to test someone but like what you said above, if they can get passed a polygraph test then chances of getting past this test might be the same and they are a good liar. It’s probably being more used to scary the suspect to a possible confession.
I'm glad they are finding other ways to test lies because maybe the criminal can get passed a polygraph but maybe they will slip up in the voice stress analysis. If they can't arrest with it and its helping them lead in one direction then maybe it is a good thing to just have to rule out suspects, but then it could turn them in the wrong direction. The only problem with that is the money that it takes to have something like this just be around when the detectives or police can't make an arrest with it. Technology is advancing in new ways maybe one day they will get this down to a science to maybe make an arrest with it.
Good article!
This post got me interested in what the real requirements are for law enforcement when introducing a new investigative tool. On the one hand the article sounds very promising yet hidden within the article are the following quotes, “studies suggest that the technology is no better than chance at detecting deception. It is banned in several states, and like polygraph, not admissible in any court of law.” Retired biological psychologist Victor Cestaro says “There is no scientific evidence to validate it,” and even a highly enthusiastic supporter, Detective Al Elverson admits “You can’t use it to arrest someone, but it helps the investigator know which way to go. Personally, I believe it works” (emphasis added).
Although I was unable to find a website that had any specific guidelines for how law enforcement agencies determine which investigative tools they will use, and which they will not, I may have found a partial answer. Are there any?
One lead detective said, "You can't use it to arrest someone, but it helps the investigator know which way to go," he said. "Personally, I believe it works."
I read an article about what it takes to be admissible in court and the “Daubert Analysis” is the main requirement an investigative tool needs to pass in order to be admissible in court. I understand the need for courtrooms to have more strict standards for evidence than front-line police, however, some of these investigative tools come nowhere close to meeting the basic guidelines for admission in court, and to me this should be a red flag.