Star2be00,

No, there are no laws regarding the use or prohibiting the use of countermeasures.  Any such law would be unenforceable; polygraphers cannot reliably and demonstrably discern when a countermeasure(s) has been utilized (see my related challenge on the home page).   Furthermore polygraphers would not welcome such a law.  During a theoretical prosecution for such, a defendant would either deny the charge (again not proveable in the absence of an admission) or indicate (assuming a foolish admission had been made) that he was merely protecting himself from the error of polygraphy, thereby forcing CQT polygraphers and prosecutors to confront the quagmire of their own folly...  Additionally, polygraphers would not welcome the "opportunity" to routinely testify to their examination results and countermeasure determinations.  If Polycop is correct in suggesting that polygraphers would suffer the same consequences as forensic scientists do regarding demonstrated error contained in their sworn/judicial testimony, we would witness a large and continual turn over in those conducting CQT polygraph examinations.

In the absence of related law, we are left with logic.  I believe that logic leads to different conclusions for innocent and guilty examinees confronted with decisions regarding taking CQT polygraph examinations and utilizing countermeasures.  If I were an innocent suspect, I would refuse to take a CQT polygraph exam based on its inherent error.  If somehow compelled to take that exam, I would utilize countermeasures to ensure that the correct (no deception indicated (NDI)) result was obtained.  If I were guilty, but not a suspect, just part of a large group of people being screened for involvement, I would do exactly as I have recommended for an innocent examinee.  If I were a guilty suspect, I would immediately (without displaying so much enthusiasm as to raise any additional suspicion) agree to take a polygraph exam and employ countermeasures (It is true that the error associated with CQT polygraphy might lead to the desired NDI result (a false negative result for a guilty examinee), but I would not want to leave this to chance).  This would be my best hope of diffusing the suspicion that had already been cast on me and might well lessen the investigative efforts which might reveal or confirm my guilt.

Quote:


Besides the astute points Drew mentioned, I don't think there can ever be a law prohibiting someone from contracting a muscle.  Enforcement would be a farce.