Batman,
You write:
Quote:...however in the law enforcement arena, on specific issue testing, it is a viable tool which has been proven to be accurate in identifying subjects and exonerating those who are wrongly accused.
CQT polygraphy may well be "viable" in the sense that it can have utility as an interrogational prop with individuals who don't understand that the "test" is a fraud. But it
has not been "proven accurate in identifying subjects and exonerating those who are wrongly accused." As the National Academy of Sciences concluded in its recent polygraph report, there is essentially no evidence on the additive validity of polygraphy, that is, its ability to add diagnostic value to that which can be achieved without it (e.g., interrogating a suspect without the use of a polygraph, or with a mock-up device that the subject is led to believe is a polygraph).
Quote:I have also stated that it is my belief that the accuracy of polygraph can only be determined on a case by case basis, as it is not something that is administered within a 'controlled' enviornment, and the primary variable, the examinee, is always different.
The same could be said of tea leaf, tarot card, astrological chart, and palm readings, all of which, like polygraphy, have no scientific basis whatsoever.
You mention your experience of seeing more polygraph successes than failures. David T. Lykken provides relevant commentary in
A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., pp. 70-71):
Quote:
How Polygraph-Induced Confessions Mislead Polygraphers
It is standard practice for police polygraphers to interrogate a suspect who has failed the lie test. They tell him that the impartial, scientific polygraph has demonstrated his guilt, that no one now will believe his denials, and that his most sensible action at this point would be to confess and try to negotiate the best terms that he can. This is strong stuff, and what the examiner says to the suspect is especially convincing and effective because the examiner genuinely believes it himself. Police experience in the United States suggests that as many as 40% of interrogated suspects do actually confess in this situation. And these confessions provide virtually the only feedback of "ground truth" or criterion data that is ever available to a polygraph examiner.
If a suspect passes the polygraph test, he will not be interrogated because the examiner firmly believes he has been truthful. Suspects who are not interrogated do not confess, of course. This means that the only criterion data that are systematically sought--and occasionally obtained--are confessions by people who have failed the polygraph, confessions that are guaranteed to corroborate the tests that elicited those confessions. The examiner almost never discovers that a suspect he diagnosed as truthful was in fact deceptive, because that bad news is excluded by his dependence on immediate confessions for verification. Moreover, these periodic confessions provide a diet of consistently good news that confirms the examiner's belief that the lie test is nearly infallible. Note that the examiner's client or employer also hears about these same confessions and is also protected from learning about most of the polygrapher's mistakes.
Sometimes a confession can verify, not only the test that produced it, but also a previous test that resulted in a diagnosis of truthful. This can happen when there is more than one suspect in the same crime, so that the confession of one person reveals that the alternative suspect must be innocent. Once again, however, the examiner is usually protected from learning when he has made an error. If the suspect who was tested first is diagnosed as deceptive, then the alternative suspect--who might be the guilty one--is seldom tested at all because the examiner believes that the case was solved by that first failed test. This means that only rarely does a confession prove that someone who has already failed his test is actually innocent.
Therefore, when a confession allows us to evaluate the accuracy of the test given to a person cleared by that confession, then once again the news will almost always be good news; that innocent suspect will be found to have passed his lie test, because if the first suspect had not passed the test, the second person would not have been tested and would not have confessed.[endnote omitted] You also write:
Quote:What I object to is the willingness of some to first, want to dispose of the use of polygraph in any capacity, based simply on their ignorance of it's full capabilities, and their vendetta due to a supposed bad experience.
Why not light a candle instead of cursing the darkness? Enlighten us. What are these capabilities of polygraphy of which you believe some of us are ignorant?
Quote:Second, the blatant willingness to provide anyone, regardless of their situation, information as to how to "beat" the polygraph, and then hiding behind some blanket ideology that even though this may render assistance to some full blown criminals, that is a small price to pay in the war against polygraph.
If polygraphy were a valid diagnostic test of truth versus deception, and if it were robust against countermeasures, then this wouldn't be an issue, would it?
Quote:And third, the fact that most of the anti-polygraph posters on this site are zealots, who refuse to acknowledge in any way what-so-ever, that polygraph does in fact have utility.
This last objection of yours is groundless. No one here is arguing that polygraphy has no
utility. It's just that it has no
validity. Quote:Attempting to enter into any type of logical debate with them is equal to beating my head against a brick wall.
You have shown little patience for logical debate, quickly resorting to the less intellectually demanding tactics of taunts, insults, and vulgarity instead.
Pages: [1] 
countermeasure frequency (Read 15365 times)
