Batman wrote on Jun 30^th, 2002 at 2:20am:

Skeptic, I have, for various reasons, had the opportunity to familarize myself with a variety of studies regarding various investigative techiques used in the field of law enforcement, to included polygraph.  I am aware of a number of studies that indicate polygraph is no better than 50% accurate, as well as numerous studies that imply it has an accuracy rate of 80-90%.   Personally I have a difficult time putting a lot of faith in studies about this particular technique.  There are a couple of reasons for this.  First, most studies I am familiar with are done in a very controlled atmosphere, invovling mock crimes.  Unfortunately, try as they might, these type studies can and will never replicate real world situations and intensity in the law enforcement arena.  Second, I personally believe the accuracy of polygraph can only be determined on a case by case basis.  What I mean by this is simply each polygraph is totally unique and can not be replicated because each examinee is so totally different.  Each examinee brings his or her own set of "baggage" to the table so to speak, so how can any study accurately depict this?   This may sound very simplistic, however my experiences do factor into my beliefs regarding this.  That is why I ask what experience many of the posters on this site actually have with polygraph.  Quoting from studies, or speaking from the limited exposure of having undergone one or two polygraph examinations does not seem to be a very solid foundation for promoting something like the use of countermeasures.  There are many people who visit sites like this one who are in fact guilty of the crimes they are being tested for, yet they are being coached on how to beat the polygraph by folks on this site.  It only takes one investigation regarding a missing child  wherein a confession or obtaining information is critical, and a polygraph may assist in same yet countermeasures are attempted. to make one somewhat hard over regarding some of the postings on this site. Batman

Batman,
You might be surprised how much I agree with most of what you've written, though my conclusions might be different than yours.  And despite some of the exchanges here, I want you to know that I have a deep and abiding respect for your experience and profession.

I agree also with Dr. Richardson: the primary difficulties I have with polygraph "testing" have to do with how it is most commonly used: for screening.  In this task, I think it has a deservedly poor reputation.  It amounts to an undeserved interrogation that, as often as not, results in qualified and motivated people being wrongly refused positions, applicants deciding to seek other employment, or espionage going undetected. All of these have the potential to do incalculable damage, and I would submit they already have.  Government has enough trouble attracting badly-needed talent from the private sector, and enough difficulty catching spies, without throwing pseudo-scientific polygraph screening into the mix.  It's time we got serious about both thorough background checks and ongoing monitoring of people in sensitive positions, and stopped placing our faith in latter-day Tarot readings.

As for countermeasures and criminal investigations, I think Dr. Richardson has already made several excellent points.  I would imagine no one here has any intention of making it easier for criminals to escape detection.

Perhaps some real common ground is being found, here.

Skeptic