Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
How many states are in the United States? (numeral):
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Feb 15, 2013, 01:16 AM
Texas state senator John J. Carona has sponsored an amendment (S.B. No. 562) to the state's polygraph licensing law that would effectively outlaw voice stress analysis in the state of Texas by adding a subsection "c" to Section 1703.305 of the Occupations Code:

Quote(c)  A person may not, for compensation or for a law enforcement purpose, use a voice stress analyzer or similar device to detect deception or verify the truth of a statement.

Slick move. Polygraph operators have long detested the competing pseudoscience of voice stress analysis. Now in Texas, it looks like they're attempting to legislate it out of existence.

By far the most common voice stress analyzer in use by law enforcement agencies in the United States is the Computer Voice Stress Analyzer (CVSA), which is marketed by the so-called "National Institute for Truth Verification" (NITV). According to NITV's website, only one law enforcement agency in the state of Texas uses the CVSA.

Senator Carona's bill would also provide for waivers to the state's licensing requirements for those with military or other federal polygraph experience, as well as those who have "a combination of education and experience the executive director determines to be substantially equivalent to that required under Section 1703.203"

That last waiver option seems like an invitation to cronyism.

Update: A PDF printout of Texas S.B. No. 562 is attached.