Geofrey G.

Opalla
B.S. Criminology
Activity no.2

TRIAL

Trial by ordeal was an ancient judicial practice by which the guilt or innocence of the accused was
determined by subjecting them to a painful, or at least an unpleasant, usually dangerous experience.
In medieval Europe, like trial by combat, trial by ordeal, such as cruentation, was considered a
"judgement of God" (Latin: judicium Dei): a procedure based on the premise that “God” would help the
innocent by performing a miracle on his behalf. The practice has much earlier roots, attested to as far
back as the Code of Hammurabi and the Code of Ur-Nammu.
In pre-modern society, the ordeal typically ranked along with the oath and witness accounts as the central
means by which to reach a judicial verdict. Indeed, the term ordeal, Old English ordǣl, has the meaning
of "judgment, verdict" (German Urteil, Dutch oordeel), from Proto-Germanic *uzdailiją "that which is dealt
out".
Priestly cooperation in trials by fire and water was forbidden by Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran
Council of 1215 and replaced by compurgation. Trials by ordeal became rarer over the Late Middle Ages,
but the practice was not discontinued until the 16th century. Certain trials by ordeal would continue to be
used into the 17th century in witch-hunts.

POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION

For other uses, see  Polygraph (disambiguation).

"Lie Detector" redirects here. For other uses, see Lie Detector (disambiguation).
-American inventor Leonarde Keeler (1903–1949) testing his improved lie-detector on Kohler, a former
witness for the prosecution at the 1935 trial of Bruno Hauptmann.

A polygraph, popularly referred to as a lie detector test, is a device or procedure that measures and
records several physiological indicators such as blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and skin
conductivity while a person is asked and answers a series of questions. [1] The belief underpinning the use
of the polygraph is that deceptive answers will produce physiological responses that can be differentiated
from those associated with non-deceptive answers. There are, however, no specific physiological
reactions associated with lying, making it difficult to identify factors that separate those who are lying from
those who are telling the truth. Polygraph examiners also prefer to use their own individual scoring
method, as opposed to computerized techniques, as they may more easily defend their own evaluations.
In some countries, polygraphs are used as an interrogation tool with criminal suspects or candidates for
sensitive public or private sector employment. US law enforcement and federal government agencies
such as the FBI, NSA and the CIA and many police departments such as the LAPD and the Virginia State
Police use polygraph examinations to interrogate suspects and screen new employees. Within the US
federal government, a polygraph examination is also referred to as a psychophysiological detection of
deception (PDD) examination. The average cost to administer the test in the United States is more than
$700 and is part of a $2 billion industry.
However, assessments of polygraphy by scientific and government bodies generally suggest that
polygraphs are highly inaccurate, may easily be defeated by countermeasures, and are an imperfect or
invalid means of assessing truthfulness. A comprehensive 2003 review by the National Academy of
Sciences of existing research concluded that there was "little basis for the expectation that a polygraph
test could have extremely high accuracy." The American Psychological Association states "Most
psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies."
The control question test, also known as the probable lie test, was developed to overcome or mitigate the
problems with the relevant-irrelevant testing method. Although the relevant questions in the probable lie
test are used to obtain a reaction from people who are lying, the physiological reactions that "distinguish"
lies may also occur in innocent individuals who fear a false detection or feel passionately that they did not
commit the crime. Therefore, although a physiological reaction may be occurring, the reasoning behind
the response may be different. Further examination of the probable lie test has indicated that it is biased
against innocent subjects. Those who are unable to think of a lie related to the relevant question will
automatically fail the test.

WORD ASSOCIATION TEST

Carl Jung’s word association test is one of the most fascinating psychological assessments. It’s based on
the idea that your subconscious is sometimes capable of controlling conscious will. As such, a
single word can unleash past traumas or reveal unresolved internal conflicts.This instrument was widely
accepted for several decades. Experts used it in a broad range of contexts. Nevertheless, we should
mention that this is a projective test. Thus, experts must use it along with other resources,
assessments, and interviews to reach clearer and more precise conclusions.
Carl Jung created the word association test in the middle of the 20th century to unravel
the subconscious. Jung wanted to understand its manifestations and find appropriate channels to
analyze it. This would further allow experts to understand it and, ultimately, to bring those problems that
hinder the patient’s freedom and well-being to light.The technique couldn’t be easier. The test
administrator says a word to the patient. Then, the patient must respond with the first word that
comes to mind. Experts claim that the stimulant concepts tend to almost always drag up emotional
burdens.In addition, the therapist must analyze the physical and emotional responses. Once the test is
finished, they’ll then interpret these together with the 100 words. Despite the fact that this test is over a
century old, it’s still considered relatively valid.

USE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS EVALUATOR

The Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSEV) is a machine for detecting signs of stress in the voice. It was
tested using tape recordings of negotiators during a prolonged terrorist siege in which a number of death
threats were issued. The study aimed to test whether the PSEV could distinguish between the traces of
terrorist voices before the death threats from voice traces at other points. A scoring system using the
proportion of voice oscillations falling above defined amplitude levels was used. PSEV scores did rise
significantly more just before the actual shooting of a hostage. Unfortunately, the apparatus proved to be
slow and cumbersome in practice and of limited, or no, use during the course of incidents similar to the
one analyzed.

USE OF DRUG
Truth drugs such as sodium thiopental, ethanol, and cannabis (historically speaking) are used for the
purposes of obtaining accurate information from an unwilling subject. [43] Information obtained by publicly
disclosed truth drugs has been shown to be highly unreliable, with subjects apparently freely mixing fact
and fantasy. Much of the claimed effect relies on the belief of the subjects that they cannot tell a lie while
under the influence of the drug

HYPNOTISM
Hypnosis is often thought of as a cheap magic trick, or if not that then surely the hypnotic Pokemon
comes to mind. There is an ongoing debate regarding hypnosis in the scientific community, a few favour a
few stand against. When there is such disagreement in the scientific community regarding hypnosis it
becomes necessary to understand what hypnosis is.

Hypnosis is nothing but in very simple terms a psychological state in which one person is under
psychological control over another person’s mind. The level of control is a vague phraseology but it is a
matter of contention as to what amount of psychological control is exerted. It is often compared to a
sleeping state, but it is considered that during hypnosis there is a certain amount of consciousness and
awareness. The solution we expect from hypnosis is due to increased suggestibility, sadly suggestibility
and sensitivity are so increased at times that hypnosis becomes a problem. The name of the study where
legal complexities meet the chaotic cosmos of psychiatry is called Forensic psychiatry.

10 EXAMPLE OF ORDEAL

By Combat
 Ordeal by combat took place between two parties in a dispute, either two individuals, or
between an individual and a government or other organization. They, or, under certain
conditions, a designated "champion" acting on their behalf, would fight, and the loser of the
fight or the party represented by the losing champion was deemed guilty or liable.
Champions could be used by one or both parties in an individual versus individual dispute,
and could represent the individual in a trial by an organization; an organization or state
government by its nature had to be represented by a single combatant selected as
champion, although there are numerous cases of high ranking nobility, state officials and
even monarchs volunteering to serve as champion. Combat between groups of
representatives was less common but still occurred. A notable case was that of Gero, Count
of Alsleben, whose daughter married Siegfried II, Count of Stade.

By Fire
 Ordeal by fire was one form of torture. The ordeal of fire typically required that the accused
walk a certain distance, usually 9 feet (2.7 metres) or a certain number of paces, usually
three, over red-hot ploughshares or holding a red-hot iron. Innocence was sometimes
established by a complete lack of injury, but it was more common for the wound to be
bandaged and re-examined three days later by a priest, who would pronounce that God had
intervened to heal it, or that it was merely festering—in which case the suspect would
be exiled or put to death. One famous story about the ordeal of ploughshares
concerns Edward the Confessor's mother, Emma of Normandy. According to legend, she
was accused of adultery with Bishop Ælfwine of Winchester, but proved her innocence by
walking barefoot unharmed over burning ploughshares.

Hot Water
  First mentioned in the 6th-century Lex Salica, the ordeal of hot water required the accused to
dip his hand in a kettle or pot of boiling water (sometimes oil or lead was used instead) and
retrieve a stone. The assessment of the injury and the consequences of a miracle or lack of
one followed a similar procedure to that described above. An early (non-judicial) example of
the test was described by Gregory of Tours in the late 6th century. He describes how a
Catholic saint, Hyacinth, bested an Arian rival by plucking a stone from a boiling cauldron.
Gregory said that it took Hyacinth about an hour to complete the task (because the waters
were bubbling so ferociously), but he was pleased to record that when the heretic tried, he
had the skin boiled off up to his elbow. Trial by ordeal mostly took place in a church because
it was believed that God could watch over and decide if the accused person was innocent.

Cold Water
 The ordeal of cold water has a precedent in the Code of Ur-Nammu and the Code of
Hammurabi, under which a man accused of sorcery was to be submerged in a stream and
acquitted if he survived. The practice was also set out in Frankish law but was abolished
by Louis the Pious in 829. The practice reappeared in the Late Middle Ages: in
the Dreieicher Wildbann of 1338, a man accused of poaching was to be submerged in
a barrel three times and to be considered innocent if he sank, and guilty if he floated.

Witch Hunt/ Witch trial

 A witch-hunt, or a witch purge, is a search for people who have been labeled witches or a
search for evidence of witchcraft. The classical period of witch-hunts in Early Modern
Europe and Colonial America took place in the Early Modern period or about 1450 to 1750,
spanning the upheavals of the Reformation and the Thirty Years' War, resulting in an
estimated 35,000 to 100,000 executions.[a][1] The last executions of people convicted as
witches in Europe took place in the 18th century. In other regions, like Africa and Asia,
contemporary witch-hunts have been reported from sub-Saharan Africa and Papua New
Guinea, and official legislation against witchcraft is still found in Saudi
Arabia and Cameroon today.

By Cross
 The ordeal of the cross was apparently introduced in the Early Middle Ages in an attempt to
discourage judicial duels among Germanic peoples. As with judicial duels, and unlike most
other ordeals, the accuser had to undergo the ordeal together with the accused. They stood
on either side of a cross and stretched out their hands horizontally. The first one to lower
their arms lost. This ordeal was prescribed by Charlemagne in 779 and again in 806. A
capitulary of Louis the Pious in 819[18] and a decree of Lothar I, recorded in 876, abolished
the ordeal so as to avoid the mockery of Christ.

By Ingestion
  Franconian law prescribed that an accused was to be given dry bread and cheese blessed
by a priest. If he choked on the food, he was considered guilty. This was transformed into the
ordeal of the Eucharist (trial by sacrament) mentioned by Regino of Prüm ca. 900:AD; the
accused was to take the oath of innocence. It was believed that if the oath had been false,
the person would die within the same year. Both versions are essentially the opposite of
ordeals, as they rely on the guilty parties' self-incrimination, while providing what amounts to
a presumption of innocence. They are designed to be harmless and merciful.

By Poison
 Some cultures, such as the Efik Uburutu people of present-day Nigeria, would administer the
poisonous Calabar bean (Physostigma venenosum; known as esere in Efik), which
contains physostigmine, in an attempt to detect guilt. A defendant who vomited up the bean
was innocent. A defendant who became ill or died was considered guilty.

By Boiling Oil
 Trial by boiling oil has been practiced in villages in certain parts of West Africa, such
as Togo.[24] There are two main alternatives of this trial. In one version, the accused parties
are ordered to retrieve an item from a container of boiling oil, with those who refuse the task
being found guilty.[25] In the other version of the trial, both the accused and the accuser have
to retrieve an item from boiling oil, with the person or persons whose hand remains
unscathed being declared innocent

By Turf
 An Icelandic ordeal tradition involves the accused walking under a piece of turf. If the turf
falls on the accused's head, the accused person is pronounced guilty