What Is Polygraph Testing

What Is Polygraph Testing A polygraph machine is used to attempt to detect physiological changes that are thought to occur when a person tells a lie. These measures include the blood pressure, the amount of sweating on the palms and the heart rate. Polygraph testing is currently being used to investigate crime in a number of countries around the world, including the USA, Japan, South Korea and Israel (Raskin, 1990). At present there is a wide-ranging literature evaluating the use of the polygraph machine and associated techniques, largely based on laboratory experimentation. Like any psychometric test, the use of a polygraph machine in the detection of deception has been questioned on the basis of its reliability and its validity. Reliability refers to the ability of a test to be consistent, no matter who is carrying it out. The question of validity asks whether the test is actually measuring what it claims to measure. The answer to both of these questions is vital in answering whether the polygraph should be introduced into British policing. The polygraph machine has been used in a number of different ways to elicit useful information from suspects. Bull, Gudjonsson, Hampson, Baron, Rippon, Vrij (2004) identify four main techniques: the Relevant/Irrelevant Technique, the Directed Lie Test, the Control Question Test, and the Guilty Knowledge Test. Of these, the majority of research has addressed the last two and so the discussion will concentrate on these. The Control Question Test The theory behind the Control Question Test (CQT) is that the physiological responses of a suspect to control questions are compared with those which are directly relevant to the crime. Control questions are specifically chosen to be vague in nature and to relate only indirectly to the crime under investigation (Iacono Patrick, 1997). This means that they should provoke high levels of physiological arousal in innocent suspects as they are designed to elicit guilty memories but those that are not under investigation. By contrast, to an innocent interviewee, the specific questions about the crime should evoke lower physiological arousal as they can be categorically denied. To the guilty interviewee, however, the reverse pattern should be seen with higher physiological response seen to the more specific questions. The basic paradigm for assessing the polygraph test used in laboratory investigations involves a mock crime with participants randomly told to act either innocent or guilty. Raskin (1982), for example, explains that the guilty participants enact the mock crime, while the innocent participants simply have the facts relayed to them. Both groups are given a cash incentive to pass the test, and this goes some way towards giving them the required motivation to pass the test. Many of the earlier studies used the CQT test and found some encouraging results. Carroll (1988) summarises some of these studies, referring first to the Office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress (1983) which rounded up 14 studies which found an overall accuracy level of 88.6% in the guilty participants, and 82.6 in the innocent participants. However, Carroll (1988) criticises this assessment as some of these studies had flawed methodologies. Instead, using stricter criteria, the figures of 85.4% for guilty and 76.9% for the innocent were found. Carroll (1988) makes two important points about most of these studies. Firstly, there was a fairly high rate of false positives of around 20-25% instances where the participant was innocent but pronounced guilty. Secondly, the polygraph operators also have their own visual information to go on when carrying out the test, they are not simply relying on the physiological data. This means that the results cannot be fully attributable to the polygraph as the human operator could be partly acting as a lie detector. The most obvious criticism of these kind of studies is that of ecological validity. The test itself relies on the emotional reactions of the participants how likely is it that monetary inducements are equivalent in motivational terms to the chance of being convicted of a crime? For this reason, MacLaren (2001) points out that the participants have little reason to be worried about the important questions and are unmotivated to try and beat the test unlike a real guilty suspect. Field studies, then, have attempted to fill this gap, but immediately the problem arises of how it is possible to measure whether a person is really guilty or innocent. In reviewing the data on field studies, Carroll (1988) found that generally the accuracy rates were low at 69.6% comparing to the 50% obtainable by chance this does not seem high. In addition, there was a very high rate of false positives 43%. More recent field studies have been reviewed by Bull et al. (2004), who find better average figures for those guilty suspects at between 80% and 90% accuracy, but still poor results for innocent suspects, with false positives ranging from 12% to 47% accuracy. The theoretical problems with the CQT have been pointed out by Ben-Shakhar (2002), amongst others. The whole design of the test is such that the operator of the polygraph is trying to deceive the suspect something that may be perceived as unethical. It is still possible to imagine good reasons for why an innocent suspect would show arousal to the specific questions these are still anxiety provoking questions. There is little evidence that this test is standardised, in that the control questions that are asked in each interview are different. This means that much variability in the accuracy of test is probably due to the operator this reduces the theoretical reliability of the test. The Guilty Knowledge Test False positives, then, are one of the major problems with the CQT. The Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) has been shown to meet this challenge. The GKT is designed to try and uncover whether the interviewee is withholding information about a crime under investigation. This involves asking the suspect a number of specific questions about the crime, each question having a number of alternatives, only one of which is correct. The operator then looks for a pattern of physiological responses to the correct option across the whole test. This test is much more difficult to apply, mainly because it requires the test operator to know a number of facts about the crime that she must be reasonably sure that the guilty suspect would also know these would tend to be details, although does not exclude major facts. A range of reviews have been carried out on the GKT in laboratory conditions. Ben-Shakhar and Furedy (1990) found accuracy rates of 84% for guilty participants and 94% for innocent participants. Elaad (1998) found rates of 81% for guilty and 96% for innocent. While these are encouraging, again it is the field studies that are more convincing because of ecological validity. Only two of these have been carried out. Elaad (1990) found rates of only 42% for guilty participants but 98% for the innocent. Similarly Elaad, Ginton Jungman (1992) found 76% for guilty and 94% for innocent. Ben-Shakhar, Bar-Hillel, Kremnitzer, (2002) defend the low results for guilty suspects, claiming that they were carried out under sub-optimal conditions, being just after a CQT had been carried out and only involving an average of 1.8 questions. Overall though, levels of false positives are much lower for the GKT than the CQT. Perhaps the biggest criticism of the GKT relates to how useful it is in a practical sense. The nature of the test requires that the interviewer has been able to amass half a dozen items of knowledge that the guilty person would be aware of that would not be recognised by an innocent person. In addition, it is not always possible to be confident that the suspect will have remembered or even noticed the particular details which the operator refers to. Bull et al. (2004) makes the point that, in high profile cases, details are often released to the public to aid the solving of the crime, which will make the interviewing of the suspect even harder using a GKT, as innocent suspects will know many more details of the crime, making the choice of details for interview more obscure. The advantage of the GKT is that in evaluating its theoretical underpinnings, some researchers have made much stronger claims for it than the CQT (The Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, National Research Council, 2003). The reason for this is that the GKT relies on the response being greater to a particular subset of the questions relative to whatever the physiological response is to the other questions (Carmel, Dayan, Naveh, Raveh Ben-Shakhar, 2003). This is unlike the CQT where variations in the physiological response of the suspect will tend to disrupt the test. In addition, the GKT does not rely on duping the suspect. The GKT does also have practical advantages. Ben-Shakhar et al. (2002) point out that a problem for the admissibility of polygraph tests in court is that they can become contaminated. In practice, a polygraph operator has the evidence of his eyes as well as the polygraph machine to go on. This may mean that the operator does not entirely base his decision on the physiological data. The advantage of the GKT is that it is much more easy to carry out blind, or for another polygraph tester to simply look at the physiological evidence. Counter measures and Base Rates Two other criticisms that apply more generally to all the different types of polygraph tests, are the effects of countermeasures and of base rates. Countermeasures refers to attempts to beat the polygraph test, these Gudjonsson (1988) classifies in three ways: reducing reactivity, suppressing physiological reactions and augmenting physiological reactions. According to Ford (1995) a man named Floyd Fay was able to successfully train 23 of 27 fellow inmates to beat the polygraph test in 20 minutes despite their admission of guilt to crimes for which they had been incarcerated. On the problem of base rates, Bull et al. (2004) point out that the kinds of situations in which polygraph tests are used may mean that there are a large number of suspects to test. This will exacerbate the problems of false positives, although, perhaps, is not such a problem in forensic situations as numbers are more likely to be limited.

Riots: Manuscript and Blog

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. I am †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. , a politically active student. The Mayor of London has invited me, to give a speech about riots in London. I would also talk about what we can do to prevent a similar incident. As mentioned, my speech today will mainly be about riots and some several reasons for that. Moreover, I will give some suggestions about what we can do to prevent the riots. I will focus on what the society can do to solve this situation. I will also speech about what the parents and the teachers’ can do for keep the children out of the riots.If some of you don’t know what riots are. I can tell you that it is a form of civil disorder which is characterized by groups how lashing out in a rash of violence against authority, property or people. The riots start on August the 4th, because a policeman killed an Afro-Caribbean man. His family has decided to stage a peaceful protest but it ended out of control. The traffic was diverted and people start ed crashing, smashing and looting. For many people, it was a staggering situations and completely unrealistic. The big question is:† What are the reasons for riots?†The protest for the Afro-Caribbean man was just an opportunity to show their dissatisfaction for the society. Big parts of the population are talking about how the policemen were not able to stop the criminality from vandalising and stealing. The word about riots was spread to South London. Due to this change of area, it is clearly that they have entirely different motives from here on. People all over London have begun to make different sorts of riots. The motive for many of the criminals became â€Å"making money, pure terror, havoc and free stuff†.We can conclude that these different episodes with riots have nothing to do with each other. Experts are discussing what the motives are. They have formed some theories about the motives and the most mentioned arguments are: unemployment, poverty and gang related crime. There are kids down to an age of 9 how robbed homes, stores and businesses. Among the youngest riots are kids who are looking for a rush. The main argument for riots is that it has something to do with unemployment. Unemployment results in poverty.Many people have tendencies to compare themselves with the community and therefore want the lower class to keep up with the middle and higher class. By use of riots has the lower class seen an opportunity to make money to gain a position in the middleclass. The lower classes are blaming the high class for their criminality, because the poor are unhappy with the balance between themselves and the rich part of their country. The youth unemployment rate is low, which result in that 1 out of 5 are not in work.The university are more expensive than ever, and that is the reasons why some of the young people lose hope for the higher education. The young people are unhappy with their present situation. They are getting more disenfra nchised, so they have to be heard. In previous times was it the black people who were victimized, but today it is the young people. The young people make riots, as an excuse to show their dissatisfaction with the society. The motive for the young people to make riots is to be a part of something bigger.Many have seen that the majority of the spotted participants in the riots are between the age of 14 and 18. Most of the people in London, who participate in the riots, are doing it because everybody else is doing it. They persuade each other by means of text message. Many of the riots have occurred as a result of the extreme use of the social media. A new problem is that they also use a Blackberry to spread the word, which involve that the communication is hidden from the police. We have to stop this young people and help them to behave in a better way.If they are old enough to make the crime, they are old enough to face the consequents. There are no correct answers to prevent new rio ts, but we know the reasons for these riots and the problems in the society. We cannot eliminate the inequality, it is impossible, but we can try to reduce it. We have to keep together and try to save our society. We have to protect the children from the criminality and help the family’s how have problem at home. The parents have to take a responsibility and be role models. The police have to take effect immediately and show that this behaviour will not be tolerated.They have to arrest the people how make riots, so they not keep on with the crime. More than 1200 of the rioters have already been arrested. Due to the modern technology, many of the participants have had their image caught, which means that they will be arrested later. In the future need the police a system, so they can find out what the people are encouraging encourage each other and make plans for illegal actions. The government have reduced the charge for the university so the young people have money enough fo r going in school and don’t make crime.A man called David Cameron promised that everyone would survive the current situation. He has 4 importing areas of focus: Rewards hard work Get more discipline in schools. A criminal justice system. Take care of the disrupted families. There are multiple reasons for riots, and we have to stop the riots trend. It is not only the parents, schools, police and sociality how should fight for a better country. We have to stick together and all try to stop the riots. If you know someone with problems, then try to bring them to senses. A society with out riots is a better place for all.

History Of Ordnance Corps Essay

The Ordnance Corp is one of the oldest branches of the Army, established May 14, 1812. The U. S. Army Ordnance Department established from The Revolutionary War. General George Washington, the commander of the Continental Army, appointed Ezekiel Cheever to provide ordnance support to army in July 1775. Until 1779, all the armies had Ordnance personnel moving with them. They were civilians and Soldiers, served as conductors for maintenance – ammunition wagon and arms. Each conductor led five to six armorers who repaired small arms. In 1776, Board of War and Ordnance was created. In 1777, the first Ordnance facilities were established at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and the first arsenal and armory operations at Springfield, Massachusetts. Other arsenals and armories were also established at Harpers Ferry, Philadelphia, and Watertown. On May 14, 1812, the Ordnance Department was organized by Congress. The Ordnance Department was responsibility for arms and ammunition production, acquisition, distribution, and storage for the war. In 1832, the Ordnance Corps had new responsibilities for researching and development of field services. Good work of the Ordnance Department continully to developed and tested during the Mexican War. The Mexican War became the foundation for the massive logistics. During the American War, the Ordnance Corps was really tested and developed. The Ordnance Corps brought massive procurement of weapons and supplies, and providing field support for fast moving armies. In 1898, Spain War, the Ordnance Corps first deployed overseas and provided close-combat support. During World War I, the Ordnance Corps mobilized and developed weapons systems, organized Ordnance training facilities, and established overseas supply depots. In World War II saw dramatic expansion of the Ordnance mission of production, maintenance and training. In both Korea War and Vietnam War, the Ordnance Corps provided supplies and maintenance, and was active in the development of rockets, guided missiles and satellites. In modern U. S. Army Regimental System, the Ordnance Corps is organized under the whole branch concept. The Chief of Ordnance serves as the Regimental  Commander, and the Office Chief of Ordnance serves as Headquarters Ordnance Corps. The Ordnance Corps will be always supporting the development, production, acquisition and sustainment of weapons, ammunitions, missiles, electronics, and mobility to supporting combat power to the U. S. Army. The insignia of the Ordnance Corps is yellow color metal shell and flame. The Shell and Flame is considered the oldest branch insignia in the U. S. army. The Shell and Flame had been used by European armies before its adoption by the U. S. army. In fact, it is still used by European armies. This insignia was assigned to the Ordnance Corps in 1832. The branch colors are crimson and yellow. At first, the Ordnance Corps had a red trail, like Artillery. In 1851, Crimson was assigned to the Ordnance Corps. Then in 1902, it was changed to black and scarlet color. Then finally, in 1921, crimson and yellow were assigned to the Ordnance Corps again. The Act of May 14, 1812, recognized the Ordnance Corps. In 1936, the army Institute of Heraldry redesigned and standardized version of the Shell and Flame. Redesigned Shell and Flame remains the current version.

VBscripting - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 713 Downloads: 3 Date added: 2019/10/10 Did you like this example? ************************************************* Program description: Script to show the week of the day, the present day of the week and also the array that outputs all weeks of the week. It also explores the input and output methods using VBscripting and the decision making using the IF-ELSE. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "VBscripting" essay for you Create order Note The programme has to be copied to notepad or notepad++ and saved to a file format. The file format should be .vbs that can be achieved by saving as from the file menu. With notepad it is good practice to use quotes (â€Å"FileName.vbs†) while naming the file for the extension to work correctly ************************************************ Introduction The section covers variables, constants and data type ************************************************ Option Explicit Dim Message, result Dim Title, var1, var2 Define dialog box variables. Message = Please enter a path Title = WSH sample user input Var1 = User input canceled var2 = You entered: vbCrLf Ready to use the InputBox function InputBox(prompt, title, default, xpos, ypos) prompt:  Ã‚  Ã‚   The text shown in the dialog box title:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The title of the dialog box default:  Ã‚   Default value shown in the text box xpos/ypos: Upper left position of the dialog box If a parameter is omitted, VBScript uses a default value. result = InputBox(Message, Title, C:\Windows, 100, 100) Evaluate the user input. If result = Then  Ã‚  Ã‚   Canceled by the user WScript.Echo var1 Else WScript.Echo var2 result End If *** End ************************************************ Loop structures and arrays in details using the days of the week.The section of the programme checks on the day of the day and remind the user by using looping and array Also constants and variables are explored further in the section ************************************************ Define constant and variables. Const title = Dear, John !  Ã‚  Ã‚   Users name can be changed according to client needs Dim text the variable cNotes is used as an array that contains messages for each day of the week. Dim cNotes Now we define an array with the daily messages. cNotes = Array ( _ Hey, its Sunday. Please take a rest, my friend., _ Its Monday. Lets begin the week., _ Oops, its Tuesday. One day of the week is gone., _ Dont worry, its Wednesday., _ Hurray, its Thursday., _ Thank goodness its Friday., _ Saturday! Why dont you relax this weekend?) Here we define the date within the welcome message. text = WeekDayName(Weekday(Now()), False, 1) _ , MonthName(Month(Now)) _ Day(Now()) , _ Year(Now()) Now we append a custom message to the date. text = text vbCrLf vbCrLf cNotes(Weekday(Now()) 1) Display the message. MsgBox Text, vbOKOnly + vbInformation, title *** End ******************************************************************** The section is about vbscript input and output methods are ******************************************************************** File Input-Output method implemented, decision making statements are explored using the if-else function and the procedures are explored. VBScript Write File ******************************************************************** Option Explicit Dim objFSO, objFolder, objShell, objTextFile, objFile Dim strDirectory, strFile, strText strDirectory = f:\logs3 strFile = \Summer.txt the file name to be created on to your computer strText = You are smart on your work. The test that need to be written on the file generated above. Create the File System Object Set objFSO = CreateObject(Scripting.FileSystemObject) Check that the strDirectory folder exists If objFSO.FolderExists(strDirectory) Then Set objFolder = objFSO.GetFolder(strDirectory) Else Set objFolder = objFSO.CreateFolder(strDirectory) WScript.Echo Just created strDirectory End If If objFSO.FileExists(strDirectory strFile) Then Set objFolder = objFSO.GetFolder(strDirectory) Else Set objFile = objFSO.CreateTextFile(strDirectory strFile) Wscript.Echo Just created strDirectory strFile End If set objFile = nothing set objFolder = nothing OpenTextFile Method needs a Const value ForAppending = 8 ForReading = 1, ForWriting = 2 Const ForAppending = 8 Set objTextFile = objFSO.OpenTextFile _ (strDirectory strFile, ForAppending, True) Writes strText every time you run this VBScript objTextFile.WriteLine(strText) objTextFile.Close Bonus or cosmetic section to launch explorer to check file If err.number = vbEmpty then Set objShell = CreateObject(WScript.Shell) objShell.run (Explorer strDirectory \ ) Else WScript.echo VBScript Error: err.number End If WScript.Quit End of VBScript to for vbscript for file input and output method, decision making and methods. ******************************************************************** Function section that displays a message box ******************************************************************** Answer = getResponse() Function getResponse() Dim answ timeOut = 10 title = â€Å"error!† button = 2 create object. Set w = WScript.CreateObject(â€Å"WScript.shell†) getResponse = w.Popup( â€Å"Write failure. Try again?†.timeOut.title.button) End Function **** end of the Function method