A few additional observations. In the first paragraph quoted below, I believe you are WAY OFF BASE. From what I have read about polygraphy, the more emotion that is attached to a particular event, the more likelyhood of incorrect findings, not the reverse. Remember, the students were not really guilty of anything, they just followed directions.
#2. Huh? How can you conclude this, Mr. Webb, based on this study?
#3. I actually agree with you here, as long as the investigators do not rule out the person as a suspect if they "pass". Can you say "Gary Ridgway?"
#4. That is why a good criminal investigator does not rely solely on any investigative tool.
#5. I am not sure I can agree with this claim, since the protocols of the study were not given. I also find it interesting that in this analysis, an inconclusive is removed, whereas in the real world, investigators of crime have to deal with an inconclusive finding, both in the street and in court. And, in the context of an employment screening, an inconclusive is oft times viewed as a failure.
skip.webb wrote on Oct 26
th, 2007 at 1:28pm:
I also realize that this is a mock crime paradigm and as such Mr. Maschke will assert that as there was no real fear of detection or consequences for the perpetrators, the results may not generalize to the public. Actually, the reverse should be true. One would assume if polygraph is able to correctly identify the perpetrator in a mock crime scenario then the intensity of reaction in a real life scenario would be greater and therefore easier to discern.
In summary, polygraph works.
Its utility in criminal investigations is very high.
Its validity compares very favorably with other forensic tools.
Its error rate compares very favorably with other forensic tools.