Do Lie Detectors Accurately Test Truthful Statements - Term Paper Example

Do Lie Detectors (Polygraphs) Accurately Test Truthful ments? Polygraphs or lie detectors are devices that are used to detect if someone is lying (Rosky, 2012). In many jurisdictions including the U.S., Israel, and Canada, polygraphs are used by law enforcement agencies as a tool for criminal investigations (Hess, 2008). However, the devices are not widely used in many countries of the world, and they generally find little application even in many of those countries in which they are applied. The U.S. is the country in which polygraphs are most widely used compared to other countries across the globe. In spite of the wide use of polygraphs by criminal investigation authorities in many countries, there is little evidence to support their accuracy and effectiveness in detecting lies, therefore, they should not be relied on as evidence in court rulings. How Polygraphs Work Polygraphs work by measuring physiological factors such as blood pressure, skin conductivity, respiration, and pulse the results of which can be used to determine whether or not a person is telling the truth or lying (Rosky, 2012). In other words, polygraphs are a combination of medical equipment that is used to detect deceptive behaviour by measuring their psychological reactions. Basically, they assess three indicators; skin conductivity, respiration, and blood pressure or heart rate (Lewis & Cuppari, 2009). In as much as they are referred to as lie detectors, polygraphs do not detect lies. Rather, they detect deceptive behaviour. During use, the individual who is to be subjected to the polygraph test goes through a pre-test phase at which point they are informed about the technique and every test question is reviewed (Lewis & Cuppari, 2009). This phase is basically aimed at raising the subject’s concern about eliciting deceptive responses. This phase may be succeeded by a stimulation test which serves to demonstrate to the subject how accurate the instrument is. The subject is then subjected to the real test. Application of polygraphs in Different Countries As previously noted, some of the countries in which polygraphs are used as a forensic tool for investigation include America, Canada, Europe, Israel, and India. In the United States of America, only 19 out of the 50 states admit polygraph testimony as evidence in court. The devices are extensively used in the country especially when investigating cases relating to sexual offenses and in supervising people who have been convicted of different crimes (Lykken, 1998). To this extent defence lawyers, prosecutors, and the police commonly rely on polygraphs in their investigations. In as much as they are extensively used in the country by law enforcement authorities, witnesses and accused persons in the U.S. may not be forced to take a polygraph test. However, even so, their use as evidence has to be approved by a federal court judge. The use of polygraphs in the U.S.A. has been and remains a subject of great controversy. Courts of law in the country have not been spared of the controversy. In a landmark case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993), the court of law ruled that the use of polygraph results is unsuitable for admittance as evidence in court since their validity was in question (Iacono, 2001). Although the polygraphs met the Frye standard of forensic evidence, they notably did not meet the Daubert standard which is more stringent. The Daubert standard demands that tools used for forensic evidence must be based on sound reason and must be based on scientific methodology to the extent that they can be relied on to establish facts. In 1998, the Supreme Court of the U.S. made a ruling that gave different jurisdictions the power to decide whether or not polygraph results could be admitted as evidence in court (Iacono, 2001). The state of New Mexico is one of the states that allows the use of polygraphs in testing defendants and witnesses before juries under some conditions. In other states, experts who administer polygraph tests can testify before judges in some types of hearings such as when seeking to revoke probation of an individual. Even as many government agencies rely on polygraphs for investigations, some members of the U.S. public and interest groups have taken up arms against polygraph testing. Interest groups such as AntiPolygraph.org have noted that some of the information that the law enforcement agencies and marketers state regarding polygraphs is deceptive or is only half the truth (Iacono, 2001). Some members of the public who claim to be knowledgeable on how the device works and how it can be cheated have taken to informing the general public on how to “beat” the device. In response to this, the federal government initiated a campaign aimed at indicting people who stated that they can teach people the methods of defeating the polygraph test. One of the few individuals who have been investigated in this respect is Doug Williams, an individual who previously worked with the Oklahoma police force (Iacono, 2001). Another unlucky individual who faced the long arm of the law for teaching people how to defeat the polygraph test was Chad Dixon. Dixon who was sentenced to several months in prison after pleading guilty to the charges brought against him was accused of aiding criminals and potential criminals in learning how to overcome the lie detector test (Iacono, 2001). Law makers in the U.S. have been drawn to the debate on whether lie detectors should be used for other purposes or not. In a number of states, laws have been enacted that prohibit employers from demanding polygraph reports from potential employees as conditions for employment or to investigate employees for possible wrongdoing. More particularly, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 has been effective in this respect (National Academy of Sciences, 2002). Some of the states in which such a law has been enacted include Iowa, Maryland, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, to name but a few. While this is the case, statistics indicate that the federal government screens potential employees. Up to 2013, roughly 70,000 individuals who had applied to work with the federal government of the United States had been subjected to a polygraph test (Lykken, 1998). In Canada, lie detectors are often applied in criminal investigations. In some cases, government agencies rely on polygraph tests to screen employees. However, courts in the country cannot admit polygraph results as evidence during prosecution. This is the case following the Supreme Court ruling in R. v. Béland (1987)in which the court rejected the use of polygraph results as evidence, questioning their scientific basis and validity (Iacono, 2001). Israel and India are two of the countries in which polygraphs are used to investigate criminals (Lykken, 1998). However, in both jurisdictions, courts do not admit polygraph test results as evidence. Although a defendant may request a polygraph test, the constitution gives them protection from being compelled to take the test as this is tantamount to giving witness against oneself. The High Court of Israel has in the past ruled that the polygraph test is not admissible as evidence for its unreliability (National Academy of Sciences, 2002). Other courts have made similar rulings to the extent that in both civil and criminal proceedings, they are not admissible as evidence. Some insurance companies demand of people willing to get insurance services to sign a contact that has a clause that permits the use of polygraph test results as evidence in court. While courts admit polygraph test results as evidence in such cases, the insurance companies often have a difficult time achieving much to their benefit through such clauses. In many cases, loopholes exist in this respect that lawyers of insurance beneficiaries take advantage of whenever they can, annulling the importance of the clause. In many parts of Europe and Australia, the lie detector remains a controversial device which courts often do not rely on for evidence (National Academy of Sciences, 2002). In many African states, lie detectors are unheard of or inadmissible in court as evidence. Some of the reasons that make courts not rely on the results of lie detectors relate to their administrators being non-experts and therefore are merely operators, and there being no scientific proof for their validity to the extent that there operators merely present hearsay as evidence. In summary, although they are used in criminal investigations in different countries, in many of these countries, courts do not admit evidence of polygraph results in their hearings and do not rely on them to make judgements. The Validity and Reliability of Polygraphs The validity and reliability of lie detectors has been a subject of controversy everywhere the devices have been put to use. Manufactures of lie detectors often note that the devises they produce are highly reliable and have high validity scores if used according to prescribed procedures. The statements that manufactures of the devices post regarding their products tend to be biased toward the positive as they are most interested in the profits the make out of their sales as noted by Lewis and Cuppari (2009). For this reason, it is not prudent to rely on what manufacturers state about the devices. In any case, many of the manufacturers of such devises have not been able to provide scientific evidence as proof of their claims on reliability and validity of their products. The American Polygraph Association (APA) which is an organization dedicated to providing a reliable and valid way of verifying truth is one of the organizations that insist that polygraphs have high validity and reliability (American Polygraph Association, 2014). Although the association is professional in nature, its views on the validity and reliability of the devices contradict research findings and the views of professional organizations such as the American Psychological Association (APA). Scientific communities have debated the reliability of lie detectors and note that to some extent they can detect lies. Many studies indicate no sufficient evidence as to the reliability of polygraphs. Many studies show that the devices are unreliable and sometimes give invalid results (Iacono, 2001). Furthermore, in real life, spies, sex offenders, and other criminals have managed to lie without being detected by lie detectors as noted by Meijer, Verschuere, Merckelbach, Crombez (2008). What this basically means is that if a person is trained on countermeasures against polygraphs and they apply these strategies during the tests, the accuracy of the polygraph results significantly reduces. Critiques of the device note that in theory, no evidence exists that any pattern of physiological reactions is a uniquely associated with deception (American Psychological Association, 2004). In other words, a deceptive person may not be anxious when telling a lie much as an honest individual may be nervous when giving truthful answers. Several studies have been conducted to test how accurate polygraph procedures are in detecting deceptive behaviour. One such study was conducted by Dr. Saxe and Ben-Shahar, a psychologist. The two scholars concluded that it was practically impossible to conduct a proper validity study considering that it is extremely difficult to know what the truth is (Saxe, 1991). Experts note that researches on lie detectors have not separated placebo-like effects (American Psychological Association, 2004). To this extent, they note that polygraph tests appear to be accurate because those subjected to them hold the belief that the tests work and that they can be detected or cannot overcome their anxiety when asked questions. Experts argue that if this is the case, then the devices are better referred to as fear detectors. Lie detectors are often applied in different situations and for different purposes – a factor that has propelled the confusion that surrounds the devices (American Psychological Association, 2004). The confusion arises out of the fact that different research and theory apply to the different purposes of the lie detectors. This being the case, no study has been conducted to assess the procedure and test type applied in security clearances and job screenings, for example. A lot of the studies that have been conducted on lie detectors have focused on incident testing. While studies on CTQ polygraph examinations reveal that they are relatively accurate, the same studies show that they have error rates that are quite significant, often fail to detect people who are guilty, and often classify innocent people as guilty (National Academy of Sciences, 2002) . Psychologists note that several factors impact on the validity of the polygraph test. Some of these include the situation, the technique that is applied in scoring the polygraph charts, the examiner, and the examinee (Lewis & Cuppari, 2009). So far, little study has been conducted on the impacts of differences in intelligence, level of education, and other factors on the accuracy of lie detector tests. Government agencies are some of the main users of polygraphs. As discussed in previous sections of this paper, prosecutors, the police, and lawyers sometimes rely on the devices which may imply that they have a lot of faith in them. The Federal government of the United States considers the devices valuable for investigation and screening, which also hints to the fact that it ascribes high validity and reliability scores on the devices (National Academy of Sciences, 2002). While this is the case, courts to a great extent question the validity and reliability of the devices often equating there results to hearsay. What this means is that governments give different and contradicting views on the validity of polygraphs. Governments appreciate court rulings in respect to the low reliability of polygraphs and opt to use them in post conviction cases (Rosky, 2012). Even when used in cases of post conviction, the devices seem not to be reliable. The devices are even more unreliable when people learn countermeasures that can be applied to beat them. Counter Measures against Lie Detectors The federal government of the United States of America has taken measures against individuals who teach people how to beat the polygraph test. Reasonably, the government would not take the teaching of countermeasures against lie detectors if the devices were fool proof. Individuals who claim to know how polygraphs work have made a number of suggestions on how people can get away with their lies even when subjected to polygraph tests. The countermeasures that are known to work are based on the understanding of how the devices work and what they measure in the human body. People who have particularly worked with the device or who have succeeded in getting away with deception without being detected by polygraphs are keen to note how easy it is to beat the polygraph. One strategy for beating the polygraph test is by tricking the polygraph tester on probable lie questions. During the pre-test phase of the procedure when the subject is asked a question that they are likely to tell a lie about, the subject should lie like they are expected to. The trick of beating the test is in biting one’s tongue as they tell a lie or answer a question as noted by Grubin and Madsen (2005). Biting one’s tongue is known to produce physiological reactions in the body. The result of this will be that the tester will believe that the person taking the test is extremely nervous and therefore has elicits heavy physical reaction when they are lying. Another strategy that can be used to beat the polygraph test is daydreaming during the test with an aim of calming one’s nerves (Grubin and Madsen, 2005). The result of this action will be that the examiner will be made to believe that the subject has physiological reactions that are off-the-charts when they are lying (Meijer, Verschuere, Merckelbach, Crombez, 2008). Another effective strategy for beating the polygraph is by controlling one’s breathing and heartbeat to reduce lie detection by polygraphs. Polygraphs can be also be manipulated by controlling breathing and heartbeat as noted by Meijer, Verschuere, Merckelbach, Crombez (2008). Lie detectors have successfully been used to detect when people lie. They have, therefore, proven to be useful to law enforcement agencies and investigators in fighting crime. The results produced by the devices, however, are not acceptable as evidence in courts in many jurisdictions. This is because they are not based on proven scientific principles and sometimes can give false alarms. To this extent, the devices should only be used for investigations and not in courts as evidence. Conclusion Lie detectors are believed to be able to detect when an individual lies by measuring different physiological factors. Experts note that lie detectors can be used to detect lies although they are far from perfect in their measures. Lie detectors are used in different countries around the world. In the U.S., Canada, India, and Israel, the devices are widely applied for investigation. However, in many jurisdictions, they are not recognised as valid for admission in court as evidence. While their manufacturers claim that they are highly accurate at detecting lies, studies have shown otherwise and so they should not be relied upon to convict criminals. Many professionals note that polygraphs can give accurate results in some cases. However, their concern is that the way polygraphs work is not based on scientific principles which in effect affects their validity. Yet another concern in academic cycles is that very little research has been conducted in respect to how accurate the devices are with respect to such variables as the education and intelligence levels of the subjects. Even as debate rages over whether or not lie detectors produce valid results, there are those who have learnt how to beat polygraph tests. Some of the strategies that they note to be effective include biting one’s tongue, daydreaming, controlling one’s breathing and heart beat and maintaining confidence during the test. References American Polygraph Association (2014). Dedicated to Truth http://www.polygraph.org/ American Psychological Association (2004). The Truth About Lie Detectors (aka Polygraph Tests) http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx Grubin, D., & Madsen, L. (2005). Lie detection and the polygraph: A historical review. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 16(2), 357-369. Hess, P. (August 24, 2008).Pentagons Intelligence Arm Steps Up Lie-Detector Efforts. Arizona Daily Star. Arizona. Iacono, W.G. (2001). Forensic lie detection: Procedures without scientific basis, Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 1(1): 75-86. Lewis, J. A., & Cuppari, M. (2009). The polygraph: The truth lies within. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 37(1), 85-92 Lykken, D. (1998). A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, 2d ed. New York: Perseus. Meijer, EH; Verschuere, B; Merckelbach, HL; Crombez, G (Oct–Nov 2008). "Sex offender management using the polygraph: a critical review.". International journal of law and psychiatry 31 (5): 423–9. National Academy of Sciences (2002). The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Rosky, JW (Aug 22, 2012). The (F)utility of Post-Conviction Polygraph Testing. Sexual abuse: a journal of research and treatment 3(4): 48-59. Saxe, L. (1991). Lying: Thoughts of an applied social psychologist. American Psychologist, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 409-415. Read More