Lie detector tests, also known as polygraph tests, have long been controversial when used for employment screening or criminal investigations. While supporters argue lie detectors identify dishonest individuals, critics point to accuracy concerns and the potential violation of civil liberties.
The premise is that dishonest answers will produce different reactions than truthful ones. The polygraph does not detect lies but measures changes in bodily functions controlled by the autonomic nervous system. Skilled examiners then interpret the data to determine the likelihood of deception. Polygraph tests are most often associated with criminal investigations, employee screenings, and national security clearances. The results of these tests are generally not admissible in court due to their unreliability and potential violations of human rights. Despite accuracy concerns, lie detectors remain popular with employers and government agencies. Some even argue their use provides a deterrent effect against undesirable behavior.
Potential impacts on workplace rights
Mandatory lie detector use has focused on workplace screening programs. While permitted in the private sector, federal legislation largely prohibits polygraph testing of employees by most private companies. Some exceptions exist for public safety roles like security guards. Critics argue:
- Job candidates have a basic civil right to privacy that mandatory polygraph programs infringe upon. Testing essentially presumes all applicants are potentially guilty of dishonesty or misconduct.
- Polygraph results could lead employers to eliminate qualified candidates, or unfairly discriminate based on private matters unrelated to job performance.
- Mandatory testing undermines worker rights and dignity. Employees feel demeaned or intimidated by the experience.
- Workplace polygraph programs are often applied inconsistently. Testing standards and implementation vary widely, raising issues of fairness and validity.
Proponents counter that employers must have tools to address internal risks, and job candidates do not have an absolute right to any job. Carefully developed polygraph programs serve to ensure integrity control in critical roles like law enforcement. However, critics believe mandatory workplace lie detector test locations across USAremains ethically and legally questionable in most cases.
Arguments around public safety usage
While controversial, mandatory polygraph programs have often continued in fields like law enforcement, the military, and intelligence where there are compelling public safety interests. Supporters argue:
- Public sector organizations handle sensitive data or perform high-risk duties. More rigorous integrity controls are appropriate.
- Mandatory testing sets consistent standards for all personnel in sensitive roles. It promotes accountability and equal treatment.
- Deterrence of major compromises or crimes benefits public safety, arguably justifying some privacy tradeoffs. Candidates knowingly accept testing as a condition of special roles.
- Incidents like Edward Snowden show insider threats are real. Every reasonable measure must be taken.
However, critics contend mandatory testing still raises accuracy and fairness concerns even in public safety contexts. And they argue the deterrent effect is unproven against dangerous individuals determined to beat the system. While use in specialized public roles continues, critics believe mandatory polygraph testing should be carefully limited based on necessity and fully protecting examinee rights.