Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

Several staff members of the One Laptop Per Family (OLPF) office implicated in the theft of more than 100 computers are to be subjected to lie detector tests the government has announced.

The revelation came from chief spokesman Dr. Roger Luncheon on Friday at his weekly post-Cabinet news briefing.

“We told those members of staff who had been … identified as implicated in the irregularities surrounding the losses of laptops, we said to them, integrity testing would be done to assist in confirming their innocence.

He confirmed that this included polygraph tests commonly called lie detector tests. Dr. Luncheon stated that the tests should be done before the end of the year.

“One hundred plus laptops disappeared; we were unable using conventional means to establish yea verily these are the perpetrators of this great evil. We are hoping, we have been told, we have reason to believe that polygraphy could assist.

Dr. Luncheon added that several other persons will also undergo the screening though he did not elaborate on who they were.

Six OLPF staffers were sent home with immediate effect in August over the missing netbooks and police investigators were called in.

The 150 computers were reportedly stolen from the OLPF’s warehouse situated at Forshaw Street, Queenstown, Georgetown.

The OLPF project was the brainchild of former President Bharrat Jagdeo with the aim of bridging the digital divide between Guyana and the rest of the world. A target of 90,000 laptops is to be given out to families across the country during the life of the project.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

So now you are guilty until proven innocent.

 

 

Polygraphy has not been shown to reliably distinguish between truth and deception in healthy individuals, there is no reason to expect that these "machines" are reliable when used on people with chronic medical conditions. As matter of fact, the American Medical Association has taken a stand against these machines and testified before Congress in support of the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act. Once again, there is no way to explain why a subject--healthy or ill--may have "failed." These "tests" are simply not a reliable way to measure truthfulness.

Mitwah
Originally Posted by Mitwah:

So now you are guilty until proven innocent.

 

 

Polygraphy has not been shown to reliably distinguish between truth and deception in healthy individuals, there is no reason to expect that these "machines" are reliable when used on people with chronic medical conditions. As matter of fact, the American Medical Association has taken a stand against these machines and testified before Congress in support of the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act. Once again, there is no way to explain why a subject--healthy or ill--may have "failed." These "tests" are simply not a reliable way to measure truthfulness.

Mitt,

 

So now you are guilty until proven innocent.

The allege drug dealers can make the same argument.

 

It will be interesting to know how many refuse to take the test or resign before the tests are given. I would have no hesitation taking one if I know that I am innocent. We will wait and see.

FM
Originally Posted by Mitwah:

If even you are innocent you can fail the test. It's not acceptable here in a court of law. It has been proven to be unreliable.

It's true. However, if some of these culprits think they will be caught, they will run and hide. Let's wait and see.
I am all for jailing the thieves if they are proven guilty. 

FM
Originally Posted by skeldon_man:
Originally Posted by Mitwah:

If even you are innocent you can fail the test. It's not acceptable here in a court of law. It has been proven to be unreliable.

It's true. However, if some of these culprits think they will be caught, they will run and hide. Let's wait and see.
I am all for jailing the thieves if they are proven guilty. 

I agree with you but I am also concerned about the individual Human Rights aspect. Here it's unconstitutional. 

Mitwah
Originally Posted by Mitwah:
Originally Posted by skeldon_man:
Originally Posted by Mitwah:

If even you are innocent you can fail the test. It's not acceptable here in a court of law. It has been proven to be unreliable.

It's true. However, if some of these culprits think they will be caught, they will run and hide. Let's wait and see.
I am all for jailing the thieves if they are proven guilty. 

I agree with you but I am also concerned about the individual Human Rights aspect. Here it's unconstitutional. 


In most parts of the world, it's unconstitutional. As you know, crimminals would use this to complain that their constitutional rights are being violated. Sometimes the government is forced to violate this rule for the benefit of the republic. We see this all the time in the US.

FM
Originally Posted by skeldon_man:
Originally Posted by Mitwah:

So now you are guilty until proven innocent.

 

 

Polygraphy has not been shown to reliably distinguish between truth and deception in healthy individuals, there is no reason to expect that these "machines" are reliable when used on people with chronic medical conditions. As matter of fact, the American Medical Association has taken a stand against these machines and testified before Congress in support of the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act. Once again, there is no way to explain why a subject--healthy or ill--may have "failed." These "tests" are simply not a reliable way to measure truthfulness.

Mitt,

 

So now you are guilty until proven innocent.

The allege drug dealers can make the same argument.

 

It will be interesting to know how many refuse to take the test or resign before the tests are given. I would have no hesitation taking one if I know that I am innocent. We will wait and see.

 Alleged drug dealers should and must be allowed to make the same argument. It is the only way for us to ensure civil society. One cannot use personal judgements and dubious technology to categorize citizens as criminals.  A lie detector alone cannot be used to detect truth tellers from liars. None such technology exists. The law is the only means we have for that and it must be the only means used. T Were their keen lines of responsibility and the practice of holding failure in executing a task as detrimental to ones job security an established practice of their office this would not be a mater for quibbling. They suspects would be long gone.

FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×