Big Daddy,

Anyone can "pass" a polygraph through the use of simple countermeasures.  How to do this is decribed in full in AntiPolygraph.org's free online book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.  The notion that only psychopaths can “pass” while lying is a myth of American popular culture. 

You can also browse The Lie Behind the Lie Detector on-line in HTML format, instead of downloading the PDF file, at:

http://antipolygraph.org/the_lie_behind_the_lie_detector/the_lie.html

Chapter 3 explains the trickery on which these "tests" depend, and Chapter 4 explains how to pass them. 

Whether you decide to employ countermeasures to ensure that you pass is an ethical choice that only you can make.

You did not specify in your post whether or not you are being polygraphed in an employment process or because you have been accused of wrongdoing.  Our advice to persons who stand accused of a crime is to refuse to submit to any polygraph "test." Passing will not necessarily remove suspicion, while failing (whether one has been truthful or not) will only tend to confirm guilt in the investigator's mind.  The police know that the polygraph can be beaten--they use it primarily as an interrogation prop to get naive and gullible suspects to confess.  An agreement to be polygraphed is an agreement to sit down for 2-3 hours with a highly experienced interrogator, with no attorney present .  

If this is in your situation, I  suggest you seek the advice of a good criminal defense lawyer.

Lastly, this post belongs in the 2nd forum down:  Polygraph Procedure, and may be moved to that forum at a later time.

If any law enforcement agency wants you to take a polygraph test in a criminal investigation case and your lawyer says you should... fire your lawyer and get a new one. No lawyer worth a plug nickle will allow his client to subject themselves to possibly being manipulated into some type of admission. If you know you are innocent, it's not your job to prove it. I know you probably feel you are helping the police get the case solved as quickly as they can because you want to help (and get them to leave you alone). However, the cops need to do a complete investigation anyway, not cut corners using a polygraph. Tell them that if they will complete their investigation, in the end they'll know you were innocent... no reason to take a polygraph except to keep the heat off of them!

Quote:


Burger, very well said.  Knowing the truth about the polygraph, only a madman would submit to this "test," innocent or guilty.  The police take advantage of the mistaken belief in American popular culture that the "lie-detector" is reliable, and often play the "Why don't you want to submit?  Do you have something to hide?" angle.  The fact is that the polygraph has never been proven by peer-reviewed scientific research to operate at better than chance levels of accuracy under field conditions.  For this reason, polygraph results cannot be used in court in a vast majority of jurisdictions.  The device is simply used by the police as a prop to dupe suspects into voluntarily give up the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.

Unfortunately, honest individuals who desire to help the police and clear their names often submit to the polygraph and are found deceptive.  Many of these people might not want to be polygraphed, but decide to submit anyway, because they do not wish to appear uncooperative.

Our advice to those accused of a crime is to simply tell the police that you know the polygraph is unreliable and that you are refuse to submit.  If they press you with the "you must be hiding something" approach, simply tell them that you will submit as soon as they direct you toward a peer-reviewed study where the polygraph has been proven to work at better than chance accuracy under field conditions, OR, in the case of CVSA, ANY study showing it to work better than chance not done by the manufacturer of the device.

A request by the police to be polygraphed brings with it a choice of two evils.  Choice #1 is to fully cooperate, and agree to sit down with a trained interrogator for a number of hours, with no attorney present simply because the police say they have a machine that may produce results that will convince them that you "didn't do it."  In actuality, the machine frequently falsely accuses a substantial percentage of those who tell the truth, the operator can manipulate the results to cause anyone to “fail,” and even if one passes, the results are not guaranteed to remove suspicion.  Choice #2 is to refuse to submit, ignore the "what do you have to hide" fallacy, and only allow yourself to be questioned with a lawyer present.  Personally, if put into this situation, I would choose the latter, running the risk of appearing uncooperative rather than giving up my rights to remain silent and have an attorney present in exchange for the chance that an unreliable and easily manipulated “technology” *might* help me clear my name.