Students will write a scholarly paper critically evaluating the limitations of instruments used to detect deception and discuss whether you feel the forensic discipline meets the Daubert Standard of Admissibility.
The paper is to be a minimum of six pages not including the title and the reference page. A minimum of five sources should be used but most scholarly papers include in excess of five. The paper is to be in APA 6th edition format using citations within the paper and references on the last page of the paper. Incorrectly cited material will affect your grade.
Fienberg, S. (2003). The polygraph and lie detection. National Academies Press. Washington, D.C.
Jennifer M. C. Vendemia, Detection of Deception, Polygraph Volume:32 Issue:2 Dated:2003 Pages:97 to 106, 2003 http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=202092
Dietzel, D., Ioannou, M., & Synnott, J. (2015, 8). A review of the polygraph: history, methodology and current status. Retrieved July 12, 2018, from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23744…
Adler, K. (2007). The lie detector, The history of an American obsession. Free Press, New York, New York
National Research Council, Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. (2003). The polygraph and lie detection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Langleben, D. D., & Moriarty, J. C. (2014, May 1). Using Brain Imaging for Lie Detection: Where Science, Law and Research Policy Collide. Retrieved July 12, 2018, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC36801…
Psychol, E. J. (2015, August). Historical Techniques of Lie Detection. Retrieved July12, 2018, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4873061/
References from various sources (i.e., text, academic journals [peer reviewed], professional journals, and web based materials) must be cited, and all must be of appropriate academic quality. Use of newspapers, news magazines, and similar periodicals must be kept to a minimum, and will be acceptable only as sources for supplementary information. References like “Wikipedia,” “Psychology Today,” and “Court TV” are not primary sources, are not peer reviewed (reviewed for empirical integrity, accuracy, and authenticity), and are not appropriate references for scholarly writing (with the possible exception of use for anecdotal background information).