Hearings

[Alexander B. Peker]

These are the links to synopsis of the Apr 25th hearing in the senate:
http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/te042501jhs.htm

http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/te042501wgi.htm

http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/te042501mhc.htm

http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/te042501rwk.htm

[George W. Maschke]

Alex,

These are actually more than synopses, they are the written statements presented by four of the five people invited to testify at the Senate's 25 April 2001 hearing on "Issues Surrounding the Use of Polygraphs."

These statements, in addition those of Sen. Hatch, Sen. Leahy, Mark S. Zaid, and a written statement that I submitted for the record are available on AntiPolygraph.org at:

http://antipolygraph.org/read.shtml#senate-judiciary-2001

Further documentation of this hearing will be added to AntiPolygraph.org as it becomes available.

[antipoly]

This statement from Jeffrey Smith is interesting and downright scary:

He states  "If we had never begun to use the polygraph, a strong case could be made that we should now not start. But we already are using it, and it has proven to be a very valuable tool. It has directly led to valuable information in many investigations – in cases involving both applicants for employment and current employees. It is also a significant deterrent. "

So Mr. Smith, (an analogy) since we discriminated in the past (be it because of age, race, or sex), and because we have already done so and continue to do so, then we should not stop this otherwise harmful practice?  You state it is wrong, but in the same breath you say it should continue because we are already doing it??!??!?!?!  Does that make it right to continue doing something that you yourself say is blatantly not accurate -  I think not!   Your argument is not logical.

In the same comments he states " Our goal must be to make that cost – in terms of innocent lives harmed – zero".   How can you do that, when you admit the machine is fallible?  The only way to do this is to get rid of it.