Using The Library Internet Or Other Available Materia 901455

Using The Library Internet Or Any Other Available Materials Choose

Using the library, Internet, or any other available materials, choose one of the following to research: a lie detector test or hypnosis. Compare the differences between its use in the private sector and the use in the criminal justice system. Do you think it should be required for people to take a lie detector test or become hypnotized to become either a police officer or to hold a position in a private company? Explain your reasonings.

Paper For Above instruction

The use of lie detector tests and hypnosis in various sectors raises significant ethical, reliability, and practical concerns. Primarily, these interrogation and assessment tools serve different purposes depending on their application within the private sector versus the criminal justice system. This essay explores these differences, analyzing the strengths and limitations of each method and evaluating whether they should be mandated for employment in critical roles such as law enforcement or private corporations.

Understanding Lie Detector Tests and Hypnosis

Lie detector tests, scientifically known as polygraph examinations, measure physiological responses—such as heart rate, blood pressure, respiration, and galvanic skin response—while a person answers specific questions. The underlying assumption is that deceptive answers induce physiological changes, allowing examiners to infer truthfulness or deception (National Research Council, 2003). Conversely, hypnosis involves inducing a trance-like state to enhance suggestibility, often used to uncover buried memories or influence behavior (Lynn et al., 2015). While the practices differ fundamentally—one is a physiological measurement tool, the other a psychological technique—their applications overlap in exclusionary or investigative contexts.

Application in the Criminal Justice System

In criminal justice, lie detector tests have historically been employed as investigative aids, although their admissibility as evidence varies by jurisdiction, with courts often viewing them skeptically due to questionable reliability (Saldick & Fotopoulos, 2014). For example, law enforcement agencies may use polygraph examinations during interrogations or pretrial assessments to gauge suspect honesty, but their results are rarely admissible in court (National Research Council, 2003). Hypnosis has similarly been utilized to jog witnesses' memories, but courts often regard the practice cautiously because of its susceptibility to suggestion and false memories (Otto & Ramirej, 2018).

Application in the Private Sector

In private employment contexts, polygraph tests are more controversial. Some companies, particularly in security or financial sectors, have used lie detectors during pre-employment screening, but many jurisdictions restrict or prohibit their use owing to privacy concerns and doubts over accuracy (Amnesty International, 2019). Hypnosis, though less common, has been used for employee training or to address psychological issues, but its application remains limited, and ethical concerns about consent and influence prevail.

Differences in Use and Perceptions

The core difference between the public and private use rests on purpose and perception. Law enforcement tends to view polygraph tests as investigative tools rather than definitive proof, partly due to their false-positive and false-negative rates (National Research Council, 2003). Meanwhile, private companies often rely on these tests in pre-employment screening to protect corporate interests, sometimes overestimating their reliability. Conversely, hypnosis lacks widespread acceptance or standardized protocols in either sector, primarily due to its controversial history and mixed empirical support.

Should These Methods Be Mandatory for Certain Positions?

Given the scientific limitations and ethical concerns, mandating lie detector tests or hypnosis for essential roles such as police officers or private sector employees warrants deep scrutiny. For police officers, mandatory polygraph screening might help identify dishonesty or concealed past conduct; however, the risk of false results and potential bias undermines its fairness and effectiveness (Saldick & Fotopoulos, 2014). Ethical issues related to privacy and self-incrimination also challenge such mandates. For private employees, especially in sensitive roles, requiring polygraph tests raises concerns about privacy violations, false positives, and the influence of false results on employment decisions (Amnesty International, 2019).

In the context of hypnosis, its use as a screening or training tool is even more problematic. Its susceptibility to suggestion, difficulty establishing standardized protocols, and ethical questions about consent make it unsuitable as a mandatory procedure (Lynn et al., 2015). Ensuring fair and scientifically valid employment screening processes is crucial, and reliance on any method lacking strong empirical support is ethically questionable and potentially counterproductive.

Conclusion

While lie detectors and hypnosis serve intriguing roles in investigative and therapeutic contexts, their limitations and ethical issues caution against their mandatory use for employment in critical roles. The scientific community remains divided on the reliability of lie detector tests, and the ethical concerns surrounding hypnosis further diminish its suitability as a screening tool. Policymakers and organizations should prioritize scientifically validated, ethically sound procedures—such as comprehensive background checks, psychological evaluations, and integrity tests—over methods with questionable reliability and ethical implications.

References

Amnesty International. (2019). The Use and Abuse of Polygraph Testing. Amnesty International Publications.

Lynn, S. J., Kirsch, I., Warwick, H. M., & Barabasz, A. (2015). Hypnosis: A brief historical perspective. Handbook of Clinical Hypnosis.

National Research Council. (2003). The Polygraph and Lie Detection. The National Academies Press.

Otto, Y. & Ramirej, K. (2018). The Role of Hypnosis in Eyewitness Memory Retrieval. Legal and Forensic Psychology Review.

Saldick, J., & Fotopoulos, S. (2014). The efficacy of polygraph testing and its admissibility in court. Journal of Criminal Justice.

Lynn, S. J., et al. (2015). Hypnosis and suggestibility: Creation and measurement. American Psychologist.