Firstly – what is a lie-detector?
The Skeptic’s Dictionary outlines some factors that should immediately have you thinking twice about its application (let alone all those Hollywood movies and television ads, where the ‘cool customer’ out-thinks it, or the hysterical situations where even saying your name right makes your pulse race!)
Psychologists do not think either the CQT or the DLT is scientifically sound, but a majority surveyed by the American Psychological Association think that the Guilty Knowledge Test is based on sound scientific theory and consider it “a promising forensic tool.” However, they “would not advocate its admissibility [in court] in the absence of additional research with real-life criminal cases.” One major problem with this test is that it has no controls. Also, unless the investigators have several pieces of insider information to use in their questioning, they run the risk of making a hasty conclusion based on just one or two “deviant” responses. There may be many reasons why a subject would select the “insider” choice to a question. Furthermore, not responding differently to the “insider” choices for several questions should not be taken as proof the subject is innocent. He or she may be a sociopath, a psychopath, or simply a good liar.
WA Today news presented the real-world application of this dubious technology for ‘entertainment purposes’: Girl’s rape revelation sinks radio stunt. I recall the very pro-skeptical TV show ‘Jonathan Creek’ had an episode which featured a reality-tv producer crowing about how using such an instrument would lead to humiliating and high-rating ‘confessions’… but I never thought of it ending up like this.
Kyle Sandilands and Jackie O’s insensitive actions towards an underage rape victim on 2Day FM is thoroughly detailed on the Hoyden About Town blog. I suggest you head there if you really want the full details, because personally? I can’t take much more than this quote:
Kyle and Jackie run a radio show on 2Day FM. They include a segment called “Lie Detector”. They accepted participation from a mother who wanted to quiz her obviously-reluctant daughter on she had wagged school, taken drugs, or had sex.
One of the commentators on that site suggests: Apparently you need to complain directly to the station and if they don’t take it seriously enough the Australian Communications and Media Authority can act. http://www.smh.com.au/news/enetertainment/articles/2009/07/29/1248546762075.html. This is a link to their complaints form – http://www.auspipe.com/complaintforms/2dayfm-complaintform.pdf – note that you have to fax it in.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Having been falsely accused and assenting to a “Lie Detector Test” in an attempt to clear myself, I know first hand that a false positive result is not unusual. I think it is more a tool of coercion to urge to the guilty to confess, than it is a useful tool to get at facts.
There is a reason these things are not admissible in courts (at least in the U.S.). That note aside:
This is testimony to several things:
1 – Media producers do not necessarily focus enough on the vetting process.
2 – Stunts like this are a pretty bad idea all around.
3 – The worst one, IMO: Some parents are cruel (the mother knew about the rape, obviously dismissed it, and was more concerned with her daughter’s behavior than what happened to her). If this woman wonders why her child sneaks out at night, she should start by examining her own actions.
You must log in to post a comment.