What good are polys?

[nopolycop]

As I march my way towards being educated on many of the various issues regarding the polygraph, I find myself torn between the injustices done to many innocent people who are branded liars, spys, drug users and such in pre-employment polygraph screening, and what I view as the better side of polygraphy, that being the apparent ability to use the polygraph as an interrogation tool to induce confessions of criminal activity to suspected criminals.

My question for the folks to who view the polygraph as junk science, is are there any areas where you feel the polygraph is used appropriately?

[ecchasta]

Of all the crime confessions that I have knowledge of, none of them involved polygraphy.  People sometimes confess during interrogations.  I don't believe it is fair to necessarily credit polygraphy with a confession when in most cases where confessions are gained they are gained without the poly.

I can't think of a way to conduct a scientific double blind study to test the effectiveness polys to gain confessions as compared to non-poly interrogations.

Back to your question.  I too have had the same question and can't think of a single circumstance (security, criminal, personal, etc.) where I would employ a polygraph exam (except to study the effectiveness of polygraphy).

[Barry_C]

Of all the crime confessions that I have knowledge of, none of them involved polygraphy.

Are you serious?  There are many out there who say polygraph induces false confessions, and now we don't get any?  Which is it?

Of course we get confessions with polygraph in both criminal and screening exams.  Police departments wouldn't pay all that money if they didn't gain anything from them.

[Sergeant1107]

I don't think many people will argue that polygraphs are not effective interrogation intimidators, provided that the person being interrogated believes that the polygraph will detect lies.

However, if the person being interrogated believes that their lies will be detected by a crystal ball, or a deck of Tarot cards, or by a numerology chart, then any of those things will function just as well as the polygraph in eliciting a confession.  And all of them will function equally well at detecting deception, which is to say that none of them will at all.

In a criminal investigation, I don't think there is anything wrong with using any sort of psychological ploy at your disposal in order to elicit a confession.  If you tell a suspect that the rock on the desk will glow if they tell a lie, and they believe you and confess, that just means the suspect is gullible.  If you tell them the polygraph will detect lies and that causes them to confess, so be it.

But when there is no confession I believe the utility of the polygraph has been fully expended.  Trying to determine via a polygraph exam if the subject was truthful or deceptive is no more scientific than to ask any police interrogator what they "thought" of the last suspect they interviewed.  It may cause an investigation to continue or be suspended, but by itself it means nothing.

[ecchasta]

Paying money for something doesn't necessarily mean value.  Police departments have also been known to pay psychics!

I'm still not convinced (since I haven't seen any evidence of it) that the poly exam is the CAUSE of any confession.  If I were being polygraphically interrogated and I really believed the machine could determine the truth, what would be the point in my confessing?  Is there some advantage to confessing in the face of a polygraph over to confessing during a simple interrogation?

[Sergeant1107]

Paying money for something doesn't necessarily mean value.  Police departments have also been known to pay psychics!

I'm still not convinced (since I haven't seen any evidence of it) that the poly exam is the CAUSE of any confession.  If I were being polygraphically interrogated and I really believed the machine could determine the truth, what would be the point in my confessing?  Is there some advantage to confessing in the face of a polygraph over to confessing during a simple interrogation?

The polygraph serves as a prop to obtain the confession.  The "cause" of the confession is the person conducting the interview.

The reasons people confess is varied.  If the crime is significant, such as murder, sometimes they confess because it is the most terrible, noteworthy thing they have ever done in their life and they simply want to unburden themselves.  Other times they confess because the person running the interview convinces them that a confession will show the judge remorse and might result in a lighter sentence.  Or because the person running the interview convinces the suspect that admitting to part of the crime isn't such a big deal, and once you get them to make any admission it is easier to draw the rest out of them.

Defense attorneys can't understand it.  They always want to believe the cops didn't Mirandize their client, or that the cops somehow beat it out of their client.  They never want to believe their client freely chose not to remain silent, not to consult with an attorney, and to admit to everything they did.  Videotape comes in very handy.

[1904]

John Hocking Ph.D in his review of 'A Tremor In The Blood'
Ref: www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/

The word science has been associated with all sorts of hogwash and chicanery, none more harmful than the myth that there is a machine that will reliably detect lying. I know of no better example of [pseudo] science than the continued use of the polygraph.
As I write in my book, "Communication Research" (2003; p 411; Allyn & Bacon), "[Lykken's] book should receive a Pulitzer prize. It is must reading for anyone who has an association with lie detectors or polygraphs ...or for anyone who would like to go on an intellectual joy ride while swooping to an understanding of how an entire society can be duped by pseudo "science." Lyken reviews virtually all known research about lie detection with brilliant scientific rigor. He concludes [as does the National Academy of Sciences in a recently published independent report] that there exists no credible empirical evidence"... for the test's validity (Hocking et. al.; 2003; p 411; Allyn & Bacon).

I challenge anyone to read Lykken's review of polygraph research and disagree with his conclusion that "it is madness for courts or federal police or security agencies to rely on polygraph results" or that the mythology surrounding the test is a deeply entrenched mythology similar to children believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny (p 279 - Lyyken).

Lykken's book is written with the rigor and documentation of a first rate college text, yet is fascinating and readable. It is an important work, one of the best and most valuable books I have read in 30 years of teaching social research methodologoly at the university level. "

Whenever anti-poly folk correctly state that polygraph is snake oil - smoke and mirrors, they are challenged to produce 'science' and 'literature' to back up their statements. They are sarcastically queried as to their educational levels, career status, and urged to read the 'literature, the science, the research' ad nauseum.

When they do quote science and critique from academics - usually more highly qualified and educated (in the specific fields of psychology and criminology) than the pro polygraph researchers, then they are asked why do they not present any original thought........!?

Every polygraph examiner latches onto thoughts, facts and pseudo-science handed down from the generations of examiner-instructors that went before.

As NAS and other august bodies have oft reported, there is nothing new, no new scientific developments in polygraphy that present any hope of it ever becoming a real science. Further, academics and scientists doubt in unison, that there exist any advancements that would produce greater reliability in polygraphy.

Examiners selectively choose to parrot only that 'research' ( read biased) that is pro polygraph. They selectively choose to ignore the overwhelming mass of research and literature that debunks polygraph as a pseudo-science and incapable of reliable DOD examination.