Law Enforcement Articles

The Polygraph Paradox
Lie detectors aren’t perfect. But, convicted sex offenders concede, they may be good enough
By LAURIE P. COHEN
March 22, 2008;

Klamath Falls, Ore.

The lie detector won’t die.

Polygraphy, the attempt to ferret out deception by monitoring changes in subjects’ breathing, sweating or pulse, has long been derided as “voodoo science.”

Confessions made under polygraph aren’t admitted as evidence in a vast majority of U.S. courts without the consent of the accused. The National Academy of Sciences says the technology isn’t accurate enough to be used for employee security screening.

Yet polygraph use is at the highest level in two decades. Government agencies from local police departments to the CIA are increasingly using the technology for job interviews. In U.S. courts lately, judges have expanded the instances in which polygraph testing is mandated or admitted as evidence.

In law enforcement, this lie-detector paradox is clearly on display. Polygraphy is a centerpiece in an expanding range of parole and probation programs that are designed to dissuade sex offenders and other felons from committing more crimes.

The recent experience of convicted gay pedophile Paul Duncan shows the polygraph’s contradictions and, its proponents argue, its promise. Last November, as part of a program in this southern Oregon town to monitor paroled sex offenders, Mr. Duncan sat in a small windowless room in a corrections center with polygraph sensors on his palm, chest, stomach and arm. Under the program, a parolee who fails the test, or admits to parole violations under the threat of a test, can be sent back to prison.

The machine’s operator asked: “Have you had sexual contact with a minor during the last six months?”

Mr. Duncan said he hadn’t. The polygrapher judged him to be lying. Mr. Duncan was sent to jail for 15 days.

In an interview after his release, the 33-year-old Mr. Duncan said reality had been more complicated. Mr. Duncan said he hadn’t, in fact, had contact with a minor. But he admitted he had violated his parole in another way — viewing online pornographic photos of young males, an activity he says had sparked his past pedophilic episodes.

Mr. Duncan says he believes that while the polygraph got the specifics wrong, it revealed a broader truth: His conscience was guilty.

“I didn’t disclose my deviant fantasies — and I deserved to fail,” Mr. Duncan said of the test. “Don’t believe anyone who tells you polygraph doesn’t work.”

Read the rest…

A measure of truth

1/21/2008 2:41:34 PM
Daily Journal

By Danza Johnson
Daily Journal
TUPELO – Cheating a polygraph test is easier said than done.

After being hooked up to the polygraph and asked to answer a simple question, which I failed, this reporter is a believer that the Law and Order version of taking a polygraph test is nothing like the real deal.

Deputy State Fire Marshal and licensed polygraph examiner Mike Ivy has been administering criminal specific polygraph tests for the state and Lee County for more than seven years. Ivy said in real life, a polygraph test can’t be done before the commercial break.

“It is nothing like it is portrayed on television,” said Ivy. “You just don’t sit down and fire questions at an unsuspecting suspect and the results come in to tell you whether a person is lying or not. One test takes about two hours and the suspect knows exactly what’s going on.”

In fact, Ivy said it is procedure to go over the questions and how the test works with the suspect before they are hooked up to the polygraph. And it doesn’t actually record lies, according to Ivy, but it records physiological data that can determine weather a person is being honest or not.

“We monitor blood pressure, pulse rate, respiration and the opening and closing of the sweat glands,” said Ivy. “You can’t turn these things on and off when you want to, so when you are not telling the truth, those areas will increase.”

After doing some Internet research on how to beat the polygraph test, I thought I had it all figured out. A list of counter measures like contracting of the sphincter muscles to cause yourself pain was supposed to be an easy way to throw the test off. Ivy agreed that causing pain to yourself would indeed throw the test off – that is if a sensitivity pad wasn’t recording your every move. That plan failed.

After the machine caught me in a simple lie, I was convinced of its accuracy.

Even though Ivy said the polygraph test is very accurate, it’s not perfect and that’s one reason they aren’t admissible in court, according to Jerry Crocker, Lee County investigator for the District Attorney’s office. Crocker is also a licensed polygraph examiner.

“If it were 100 percent we wouldn’t need trials or juries,” said Crocker. “The machine puts out the data, but people read, and whenever you’re dealing with people there is a chance for error.”

There biggest use is helping to investigate crimes, according to Ivy. He said the test can help investigators rule out witnesses and things to that nature on the investigative side.

Currently, there are several television and radio shows aired which depict polygraphs as a fun, entertaining novelty.

I see polygraphs being portrayed as omnipotent and akin to star-gazing, able to tell the future.

As a polygraph examiner, I feel compelled to dispel the myths surrounding the current carnival-like atmosphere of the polygraph programs.

One such show asked questions of the person being “examined” such as “If my daughter gained 200 pounds, would you still love her” and “Do you consider yourself to be a good husband” and my personal favorite “Have you ever even thought about cheating on me?“

With the popularity of these types of programs, coupled with the entertainment industry’s well-documented penchant for producers copying each other’s work, we expect to see more shows such as these cropping up in time for the next ratings war.

Now, entertainment is entertainment and real life is real life. What is being portrayed in the media is absolutely unlike what actually occurs in modern, professional polygraph examinations. For example:

* Polygraphs do not test a person’s hopes, wishes or desires. (”Do you wish your wife would drop dead?“)
* Polygraphs do not test acts which may or may not occur in the future (”If my daughter gains 200 lbs, will you still love her“)
* Polygraphs are not meant to test opinions (”Do you consider yourself to be a good husband?“)
* Polygraphs are not meant to test intent (”When you told that girl you loved her, did you mean it?“)

What polygraphs excel at is testing specific acts already committed.

For example, polygraphers would never test someone who thinks they might commit a crime in the future: the proper test would be to test someone to see if they had already committed a specific criminal act.

To people watching media-enhanced shows about the polygraph examination process, the difference between wanting to commit a crime and committing a crime may be insignificant, but it is crucial to the successful, accurate administration of the polygraph examination.

My fear is that by trivializing polygraphy, the general perception amongst the populace will be that polygraph examinations are some kind of parlor trick.