Gordon, While I have enjoyed our exchanges regarding countermeasures/counter-countermeasures involving the CQT polygraph exam and don't in any way want to discourage you from continuing that thread (responding to the numerous outstanding questions/comments put to you as well as adding your own additional thoughts), I thought I'd introduce another fundamental line of discourse regarding the CQT. That would be to take a look at the fundamental theory of its practice. Although many theories have been offered over the years, it appears that polygraphers seem to return over and over again to the notion involving "Fear of Detection" on the part of both guilty and innocent (of relevant issues) examinees. Theory has it that, following the proper "setting" of test questions (a very subjective pre-test procedure worthy of its own discussion--another post) guilty subjects, upon in-test presentation, will respond most strongly to relevant questions and innocent subjects to control questions, thereby giving a basis for the general overall and spot scoring used (scoring, yet another future topic for our consideration) in evaluating CQT polygraphy. The notion that I would like to raise at this point is a diametrically opposing theory for why CQT polygraphy would NOT be expected to work (would be expected to result in false positives): "Fear of Consequences." I am not suggesting that there are not other reasons (anger, surprise, revulsion, etc.) for why the "test" might be confounded on any given use, but I believe the suggested general mechanism is why one would question its working in a large number of situations. I think it is quite reasonable to believe that anyone would react to being asked about involvement in certain crimes, not because of fear of being caught in a lie, but because of a fear of the consequences of having been so branded, independent of and regardless of whether that one (the polygraph examinee) had actually told the truth or told a lie during a polygraph exam regarding matter(s) under investigation. Is it not reasonable to expect an examinee to respond to the relevant question "Did you rob the bank?" physiologically because he knows that deception-indicated polygraph results may lead to prosecution and conviction, denial of freedom, access to family, friends and worldly resources, etc.? Furthermore, is this not even successively more and more likely in the case involving a capital crime, and one in which the examinee's being subject to the death penalty may have been mentioned in the course of the investigation prior to an exam? Perhaps the worst real-case scenario relates to a well-publicized case in which a CQT polygraph exam was given to a death row inmate within hours of the administration of his death penalty sentence. Is there any sane rationale for such an action, and, with the obvious psychological pressures commensurate with such a scenario, is there any way one could reasonably expect an innocent polygraph examinee, under such conditions, to focus on control questions (via some fear of detection mechanism) as opposed to the relevant questions that directly relate to his imminent demise (via a fear of consequences mechanism)? I think not. Admittedly, I have gone from a rather commonplace criminal investigation (bank robbery) to what to me is one of the most egregious uses of CQT polygraphy on record, but one can imagine the same issues applied to a job applicant having an offer of employment riding solely on a polygraph exam or even look to a rather routine non-criminal setting to see evidence of what I am suggesting. It is not uncommon for an individual who is having his blood pressure measured to respond with a sudden increase in systolic blood pressure (as much as 30 mm Hg), not because he is necessarily hypertensive but because he may well be hyper-reactive. The nature of this hyper-reactivity, the so-called "white coat effect," may well stem from a fear of consequences, i.e., the inability to maintain a certain job, inability to get or maintain life insurance, inability to participate in certain athletic activities, etc., following a determination of hypertension. Is not this sort of phenomenon that we see fairly routinely evidenced with blood pressure readings (perhaps occurring through the suggested mechanism via the same autonomic response system in play with CQT polygraphy) actually what may well be happening with polygraphy? I would appreciate your thoughts on these issues. Note: I expect to be preoccupied with other matters over the next several days, but do look forward to continuing our discussion(s).
|