Research paper.

Last Name 1

Student Name

Kristin Riley

RHET 1302

Date

Getting Away with Lying: The Polygraph’s Validity in Criminal Investigation

For as long as humans have lied to one another, attempts have been made to develop

various methods to accurately separate the truth-tellers from the deceivers. These original

mechanisms were usually unethical in nature, such as the Bedouins of Arabia from 300 B.C, who

forced the accused to lick a hot iron in order to determine if they were speaking the truth (Lewis

86). The invention of the modern polygraph introduced a new way to evaluate deception by

utilizing a combination of psychology, biology, and technology, rather than relying on gruesome

coercion alone. Developed during the early 20th century in the United States, the polygraph test

has several attributors to its creation: William Moulton Marston, John Augustus Larson, and

Leonarde Keeler (Synnott 60-61). A popular misconception made by the general public is that

the device is a “lie-detector”, and can, almost magically, ascertain whether or not a person is

completely guilty. However, there is no direct, fool-proof way to measure lying. Instead, the

polygraph analyzes various physiological aspects of the person being evaluated, such as blood

pressure, heart rate, and respiration (Lewis 87). While the diagnostic results from these tests

should show accuracy in condemning a guilty person, the polygraph is known for, “sufficient

false positive and false negative results [that] make the findings in individual cases of

questionable value” (Steinbrook 123). Mental illness, emotional confusion, and anxiety are all

uncontrollable factors that can lead to innocent people being convicted of crimes they did not

commit, letting the actual perpetrators get away unpunished. Since its initial adaptation in the

Last Name 2

field of criminal investigation, the validity of the polygraph has been highly controversial for its

testing procedures, and is illegitimate in concluding whether or not someone is telling the truth.

Even since its beginning, the history of the polygraph can be summarized by years of

public criticism and debates of its credibility in the court of law. In 1923, William Marston, who

emphasized systolic blood pressure as an indicator of deception, wanted the results of the test to

be admitted as evidence in court cases, particularly Frye v. United States (Synnott 61). However,

his attempt to make it admissible was unsuccessful because it had, “not yet gained such standing

and scientific recognition among physiological and psychological authorities” (USLegal). This

rule was known as the Frye Standard, exhibiting that the polygraph was not accepted by the

scientific community, and therefore did not meet the legal criteria to be reliable evidence

(USLegal). The first empirical evaluation of the polygraph did not come until 41 years later in

1965, and was conducted by the US Committee on Government Operations (Synnott 61). In spite

of the condemning results stating that, “People have been deceived by a myth that a metal box in

the hands of an investigator can detect truth or falsehood,” advocates for the instrument

disregarded the criticisms of the polygraph’s scientific soundness (Synnott 61-62). Ironically,

those that were more likely to “beat the system” and show its inability to be reliable were

advocates themselves, those who knew the device and its limitations better than anyone. In fact,

William Casey, the director of the CIA during the 1980s, was a supporter of the polygraph and

took the test every month because, “he knew he could beat them” (Steinbrook 123). This

controversy surrounding the lack of methodical capability in the device should have pushed for

greater research and development to improve its testing procedures. But even in the beginning of

the 21st century, it was still being criticized for its poor quality, its inability to improve on its

theoretical founding, and its heavily biased research (Synnott 60). Modern day polygraph tests,

Last Name 3

while far more technological and standardized than its predecessors, still has a lot to be critiqued

on in its methods of detecting deception.

The testing procedures for most polygraph exams are highly dependent on the person

who conducts it, since there is not a universally standard approach. While the type of questions

asked depend on which methodology the test examiner subscribes to, the most widely-used

version is the Comparative Question Test (CQT) (Synnott 67). Once the individual is hooked up

to the various sensors and equipment, a pre-test is conducted in order to establish a control-

group, as well as convince the examinee that the polygraph actually does work (Steinbrook 89).

This is just one example of examiner bias, which can ultimately influence the emotions and

anxieties someone feels during the interview, leading to skewed data. The next part of the CQT

consists of comparing physiological reactions to relevant questions (RQ) –regarding the current

crime- and the previous comparison questions (CQ) –applicable, but not about the crime (Offe

291). It is assumed that truthful people will focus more on the CQ, while those that are guilty

will react stronger to the RQ, since it directly addresses the crime that they committed (Offe

292). However, the amount of significance the examiner places on the CQ and explanation

during the pre-test can create differences in identification rates for guilty individuals (Offe 299).

In the post-test phase, the physiological data recorded by the machine, such as electrodermal

activity, arousal, and breathing, are analyzed most often solely by the examiner. The amount of

influence they possess is significant, as they alone, “set the cut-off points at which a given

response is indicative of deception,” and ultimately conclude if the results indicate guilt in a

person (Synnott 68). If the examiner shows bias in their questioning and has little psychological

training, this can result in the polygraph creating false positives and false negatives. Essentially it

is the examiner, not the device itself, that has the true power in convicting who they feel is guilty

Last Name 4

or innocent. However, this partiality is not the only factor that makes the polygraph non-reliable

in the criminal justice system, as unethical methods of the test are continuously used today.

One controversial approach to detecting deception is known as the Reid technique,

named after psychologist John Reid, a polygraph advocate who adapted this method for police

interviewing purposes (Gudjonsson 33). Rather than utilize the technology that is primarily used

in polygraph exams, Reid believed that, “the individual conducting the polygraph examination

was the real lie detector,” and therefore relied on interrogation rather than scientific,

physiological measurements (Synnott 62). This nine-step interviewing style is classified by

increasing the suspect’s anxiety levels, weakening their resistance, confronting them with

questionable incriminating evidence, and then giving the suspect a false sense of security

(Gudjonsson 34). While it is a fundamentally successful method in obtaining confessions, the

manipulative nature of this test creates concerns over the Reid techniques’ dubious ethical codes.

One of the major issues with guilt-presumptive interrogation is that it can lead to one of the

worst possible outcomes for criminal investigation: false confessions by innocent people. Steve

Drizin, legal director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions, says that these examiners only give

suspects two options: “admit to the crime using the given justification or confess without it,

leaving the suspect to appear like a monster” (Johnson). Whether hooked up to a polygraph

machine or relentlessly hounded by condemning questions, the subject is at the mercy of the test

examiner, who has the ultimate power in convicting a person of deception or truth. And while

confessions can be either voluntary or police-pressured, there are many factors that can lead to

one falsely admitting guilt. Intoxication, verbal threats, the age of the suspect, and a

misunderstanding of the situation can all be crucial variables for people that confess

(Innocenceproject). However, one of the most worrisome aspects of techniques that are meant to

Last Name 5

determine truthfulness is the disregard of mental illnesses and their effects on the examinee in

these testing conditions.

Those with mental disorders are at a high risk in interrogation environments where

examiners have the capability to produce wrongful convictions based on misleading data. When

the physiological aspects of the body related to arousal increase during questioning, the

polygraph machine reads this as an indicator of lying. However, while deception may be one

reason for this change, confounding factors such as anxiety, anger, and fear may also provide an

explanation (Steinbrook 122). For those suffering from general anxiety or panic-related

disorders, these uncontrollable emotions can drastically increase due to the stressful nature of the

test. Because of this, the polygraph can falsely read this as a sign of lying. Psychotic suspects

with illness-related delusions are especially liable to false results when hooked up the device, as

cases show that, “the polygraph will find that the patients are telling the truth, even when asked

about events that in fact did not occur” (Hirschmann 4). Lack of medication, undiagnosed

suspects, and other psychological dysfunctions can further diminish the polygraph’s already

questionable validity in detecting deception. False confessions are especially probable in police

guilt-presumptive interrogation where examiners,” are not given any special training on

questioning suspects with mental disabilities” (Innocenceproject). With the already biased and

influential power interrogators have over examinees, mentally ill individuals are at a

disadvantage if they exhibit abnormal behaviors and responses to questioning. What results from

these wrongful admissions to guilt is the perpetuation of the misleading correlation that mentally

ill people are more likely to commit crimes. Despite the polygraph being founded on the basis

for incorporating psychology into the criminal justice system, its testing standards do not

conform to that of the American Psychological Association (Steinbrook 122-123). Coupled with

Last Name 6

the fact that it is not required for test examiners to have psychological training, especially in

regards to mentally ill suspects, the polygraph’s legitimacy in accurately determining truth is

further diminished.

The controversial history of the polygraph exhibits how both human beings and machines

are not inherently reliable at tasks they are intended to be experts at. In today’s time where

people are becoming progressively more dependent on technology, this can lead to many

shortcomings if too much trust is placed in them. People rely on machines to provide the correct

answers to questions that are impossible to know on one’s own, whether it is a calculator or an

fMRI. High expectations are also placed on the specialists who are trained to operate them, using

years of advanced education and experience to draw conclusions from scientific data. In some

cases, this dependability can mean the difference between life and death. For instance, even

though medically licensed doctors achieve over ten years of schooling, “More than 5%, or about

12 million U.S. adults, could be misdiagnosed during an outpatient visit,” and half of these

mistakes have the potential to provide worse outcomes (Rice). Despite this high percentage of

diagnostic errors, Americans continuously place trust in their doctor, since an expert has greater

knowledge of medicine than a novice does. For the criminal justice system, the same issue

applies to suspects who are at the mercy of interrogators. Just as a doctor can find an illness

where one does not exist, polygraph examiners have the potential to determine guilt in an

examinee who has none. While a polygraph machine can create results based on scientific

physiological data, it is ultimately up to a human to draw conclusions from it. And as the history

of the polygraph and other deception-detection techniques show, examiner manipulation, bias,

and disregard to mental illnesses can create outcomes that do not accurately reveal the truth. This

kind of psychological pressure that examiners can place on suspects can be seen in cases like

Last Name 7

Gary Gauger’s, who spent three years in jail and nine months on death row after falsely

confessing to the murder of his parents (Eldeib). Despite the actual results being inconclusive,

Gauger was so bewildered that he ultimately accepted the “truth” that investigators told him, and,

“began to speculate how he might have killed his parents” (Eldeib). Until progressive

development and research towards improving the polygraph’s testing procedures are pushed, it

should not be seen as a reliable device in convicting people of lying. Rather than continue

focusing on old foundational theories that view only specific physiological reactions as

indicators of deception, researchers should look more into brain activity correlations. In addition

to utilizing neuroscience-based technologies to find new interrelationships, finding and

incorporating methods to diminish examiner bias should be also be emphasized. Specialized

psychological training and experience needs to be a requirement in order to become a polygraph

interrogator so that suspects with mental illnesses are not at a higher risk for false convictions

than those without them. While technology can be upgraded to become more efficient over time,

it is harder for humans to be able to improve themselves if they do not understand that they too

are susceptible to making mistakes.

Last Name 8

Works Cited

Bunn, Geoffrey. “The Lie Detector, “Wonder Woman” and Liberty: the Life and Work of

William Moulton Marston.” History of the Human Sciences, vol. 10, no. 1, 1997, p. 91.

Eldeib, Duaa. “The Polygraph and Wrongful Convictions: Juan Rivera, Kevin Fox and Gary

Gauger.” Chicago Tribune, 10 Mar. 2013.

Gudjonsson, Gisli H, and John Pearse. “Suspect Interviews and False Confessions.” Current

Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 20, no. 1, 2011, pp. 33–37.

Innocence Project. “False Confessions or Admissions.”

Johnson, Krista. “City Alumna's Case Highlights Risk of False Confessions.” Iowa City Press-

Citizen, Press Citizen, 16 July 2017.

Lewis, Jerry A, and Michelle Cuppari. “The Polygraph: The Truth Lies Within.” The Journal of

Psychiatry & Law, vol. 37, no. 1, 2009, pp. 85–92.

Offe, Heinz, and Offe, Susanne. “The Comparison Question Test: Does It Work and If So

How?” Law and Human Behavior, vol. 31, no. 3, 2007, pp. 291–303.

Rice, Sabriya. “Misdiagnosis Could Affect 12M U.S. Adults Annually, Study Finds.” Modern

Healthcare, 16 Apr. 2014.

Shmuel Hirschmann, et al. “The feasibility of the polygraph examination in psychotic patients.”

WebmedCentral, 12 August 2014.

Steinbrook, Robert. “The Polygraph Test — A Flawed Diagnostic Method.” The New England

Journal of Medicine, vol. 327, no. 2, 1992, pp. 122–123.

Synnott, John, et al. “A Review of the Polygraph: History, Methodology and Current Status.”

Crime Psychology Review, vol. 1, no. 1, 2015, pp. 59–83.USLegal, Inc. “The Frye

Standard and Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.” Forensic Law.