On Tuesday, 28 July 2009, the British tabloid The Sun published an article by chief reporter John Kay on a 3-year pilot project by the UK Ministry of Justice to subject some 450 sex offenders to post-conviction polygraph screening. Kay sat in for a polygraph screening examination administered in Birmingham by US polygrapher Bill Scheve. Apparently relying on Scheve as his source, Kay reports: "It is virtually impossible to trick a lie-detector because it picks up signals of fear, which emanate from the hypothalamus gland in the neck."

Of course, this is laughably absurd. Or it would be laughable were the matter at hand not so serious. All that one needs to trick a lie detector is an understanding of the trickery on which the "test" itself depends and to covertly augment one's physiological reactions to the "control" questions, as is explained in detail in Chapters 3 & 4 of AntiPolygraph.org's free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (1 mb PDF).

Kay lists the questions that are asked on the polygraph screening exams as follows:

Quote:


The first question is a prototypical "sacrifice" relevant question and would not be scored.

The second and third questions, while appearing relevant, are actually probable-lie "control" questions. It is secretly assumed that even sex offenders who have not violated the terms of their probation will show a reaction to these questions.

The last two questions listed are the relevant ones -- the only ones that the probation department is really concerned about.

All that British sex offenders who have violated the terms of their probation and are subjected to such a screening "test" need to do in order to fool the lie detector is to 1) make no damaging admissions and 2) augment their reactions to the 2nd and 3rd questions listed above. This can be done by covertly biting down on the side of the tongue, thinking exciting thoughts, or doing mental arithmetic.

Far from it being "virtually impossible to trick a lie-detector," as Kay reports, it's quite simple. And it's no doubt going to happen.

George,

As much as I hate swallowing what very little is left of my pride by defending one of Mr. Holden’s guys, what is right is what is right.  So here it goes.

I looked at the article.  I was almost giddy at the prospect that one of my nemeses may have said something so absurd or boneheaded and found you may be misinterpreting where that information came from.

The offending neck statement was not in quotation marks and therefore may have been from a boneheaded journalist rather than what I hoped it would have been.  I have always prided myself at being unbiased and impartial, even to those who wish me bad or seek to destroy me.  Much to my chagrin, I doubt Scheve said that the hypothalamus gland is in the neck.   

I will say that I hope this pilot program is being closely watched in regard to its independence and unbiased tests and data.  Let’s just say that I know things which are not in that article.  I just hope that Mr. Scheve does not have the same documented disregard for certain JPCOT or APA standards like his cohorts have in the past.   

Polygraph should be used in a manner which is fair, independent and unbiased and not as a tool to be utilized for the furtherance of an Orwellian society.  Polygraph has limits, just like anything else including VSA, MRI, or any other “lie detection” device which would be prone to operator or programming error.  Nothing should be the end all or be all.   

Let’s be fair here.  If you read the article closely, I am sure you will see my point.  I would love to say that one of Holden’s guys said something that stupid.  Nothing would give me more pleasure.  In all fairness, I can’t jump on that band wagon and I am asking that you be a wee bit more fair to Mr. Scheve in your assessment of that ill-fated sentence.

Lastly let’s look at the source here. IT’S A TABLOID.  It is nothing more than a rag sheet, which, according to wikipedia, was dubbed “the king of tabloids” in the 1990’s.  It runs articles which sell sensationalism with fact merely being a byproduct if existent in true form at all. This is not the Boston Globe or the Wall Street Journal here people.  You are counting in the journalistic integrity of a supermarket tabloid that I wouldn’t count on to tell me the weather.  Because if it were raining, the headline would probably read “THE SKY IS FALLING” just to make a few extra Euros.

The Wall Street Journal’s article with Holden trying to pass himself of as a psychologist holds more water than some British rag with their sloppy writing and piss poor fact checking.      

Erin Go Bragh

Joe McCarthy

Yes, but at least you can use a tabloid NP as toilet paper!

TC