Polygraph tests on sex offenders

[TX50]

[...]
During the test
1. When a control question is asked inflict pain on yourself. This will increase your stress levels above the level when you lie.
2. When you asked 'did you have sex with <name of 5 year old girl you did have sex with> in the last week?', you can answer no with less stress than a control question. [...]

But how would that fool anyone? A higher (or similar) stress response on an
innocuous question than on an incriminating one is going to look very odd. I'd
presume that operators are trained to recognise people trying to pull a fast
one like that.

This doesn't mean I agree at all that polygraphs are effective, of course.

 

[I Ratant]

All the questions asked in a legimate polygraph examination are gone over before by the examiner and the subject.
Some questions are neutral, some directed at the reason for the examination.
Anyone who remains calm, and takes some pains to bond with the examiner will have no trouble passing.
Doing anything unusual that generates more than normal activity on the record during the test will probably invalidate the test.
Depending on why the test is being administered, this can result in another test, which if "failed" again can mean the subject loses a sensitive position.
I know 3 people who have failed polys for such positions.
One tried to "outsmart" the test with the pain thing.
On his second failure, he was dismissed from the cushy job he had.
Another couldn't handle one of the questions about personal problems, and blew up and lost his position, and another was just too frickin nervous to even try the test.
The "science" behind the polygraph seems to be the opinion of the inventor as to what -his- physical responses would be if he was evasive, and little else.
No more valid than seeing bunnies in the Rohrshach ink blobs when the guy that made the blob saw a hamburger, and therefore -you're- the crazy guy!

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Joey - I knew that polygraphs were bunk but your perspective is interesting still. If you don't mind me asking, why did you have to pass so many tests in so little time?

PM headed your way.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Polygraph, as scientific as an E-meter.

Depends. It does a very good job at measureing the phisological changes it measures. It is just that these changes do not really mean much for truth detection.

If you wanted to determine if someone is having an orgasm at the time or not it would be better for that than for determining if someone is telling the truth.

 

[sphenisc]

I am fairly certain that he use of these tests required parliamentary approval. I therefore assume that MPs would have no problem being hooked up to them while speaking in the house.

Lying to the House of Commons is an offence and I am sure no MP ever does it. I am therefore certain that MPs would be delighted to demonstrate just how foolproof these machines are.

No point, you can just watch their lips move.

 

[fuelair]

No point, you can just watch their lips move.

"Hello!" he lied.

 

[brodski]

I am fairly certain that he use of these tests required parliamentary approval. I therefore assume that MPs would have no problem being hooked up to them while speaking in the house.

Lying to the House of Commons is an offence and I am sure no MP ever does it. I am therefore certain that MPs would be delighted to demonstrate just how foolproof these machines are.

However accusing a Member of lying is unparliamentary conduct, which means that if n MP ever failed the test the machine and its operator would have to be removed from the chamber, and face disciplinary procedures

 

[Fnord]

I have not verified this, but I've heard that Nyquil (or other drowsiness-inducing cough/cold medicine) is helpful if taken 30 minutes before the exam.

 

[casebro]

Self-centered pricks like Aldridge Ames and Robert Hanssen with no moral compass whatsoever. They each took screening polygraphs multiple times in their careers at CIA and FBI, respectively. Aces every time.

Wouldn't the same apply to sooo many criminals that the test is useless? Perhaps that is why it is not considered evidence. Hmm, do any employers ever administer the test to applicants for sales positions? Possibly yes, but with reverse results perhaps?

 

[shadron]

In the US, polygraphs are not admissable evidence in court, and this kind of program would be subject to a legal challenge and rejected--assuming it wasn't cancelled due to pre-implementation publicity.

Good luck to the British equivalent of the ACLU!!

Except for the fact that they are still used by the CIA, the FBI and other executive branches. For example, this is an article from the Project on Government Secrecy of the Federation of American Scientists on January 21 this year:

OLC SAYS LBJ MEMO CRITICAL OF POLYGRAPH IS NON-BINDING

The outgoing head of the Bush Administration Office of Legal Counsel took the time to issue an opinion (pdf) last week stating that a forty-year-old memorandum issued by President Lyndon B. Johnson limiting use of polygraph tests is not binding on executive branch agencies today.

The Johnson memorandum had stated that in order "to prevent unwarranted intrusions into the privacy of individuals[,]... use of the polygraph is prohibited" in the Executive Branch, with three "limited exceptions." [Note: it wasn't even because they might be wrong!]

But in a 12-page OLC opinion dated January 14, 2009, Steven G. Bradbury concluded that the Johnson memo was never formally issued, that it was contradicted by subsequent actions and that in any event it is not binding on executive branch agencies today. [emphasis mine; it sounds like he is trying to ex post facto legally cover agency butt here.]

The OLC memo was previously noted by polygraph critic George Maschke of Antipolygraph.org, who also posted a copy of the LBJ memo on polygraph testing.

 

[shadron]

Wouldn't the same apply to sooo many criminals that the test is useless? Perhaps that is why it is not considered evidence. Hmm, do any employers ever administer the test to applicants for sales positions? Possibly yes, but with reverse results perhaps?

Some criminals are psychpathic, there is no doubt, but the majrity arenot. They feel guilt more or less in direct proportion o the amount of criminality they have been involved in (and about 400 other factors, I'm sure). Polygraph experts and companies never allow testing by other than a certified tester; this certainly feathers their nest, but it also protects them from a lot of criicism they'd otherwise have to counter. After all, use of such a machine pretty closely borders on slander, discrimination and a lot of other actionable offenses.

 

[Lothian]

However accusing a Member of lying is unparliamentary conduct, which means that if n MP ever failed the test the machine and its operator would have to be removed from the chamber, and face disciplinary procedures

Perhaps they should trial it with some non controversial issues like justifying their second home allowance.

 

[arthwollipot]

It affects weight distribution, as anyone with a Wii Fit board can tell you. You'd have to move it enough to cause considerable difficulty and in my opinion that would definitely register.

The other thing being, you aren't actually moving your toe at all. You're exerting pressure on the rock you've stashed in your shoe.

Ah, never mind. I was always skeptical of that particular technique anyway.

 

[zooterkin]

Sounds to me like this is a result of "Professor Don Grubin" trying to guarantee himself a job...or does he have a financial interest in a polygraph device firm?!

He's certainly been involved in this for some time. From 2002

Forensic psychiatrist Professor Don Grubin, who oversaw the tests said convicted paedophiles had revealed unauthorised contact with children when the lie detectors were used.

Commenting in 2005 on a proposal that listening to someone's stomach might work as a method of detecting lies, it's interesting to compare his approach to Richard Wiseman's.

Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, said: "It is an interesting idea.

"However, like the conventional lie detector, the technique seems to rely on the notion that people become more stressed when they lie.

"People who do not feel guilty about lying or have rehearsed the lie many times may not show such anxiety and thus pass the test."

Professor Don Grubin, professor of forensic psychiatry at Newcastle University, said: "There's no reason to believe that this would not work.

"The stomach is controlled by the same bit of the non-voluntary nervous system that controls breathing and heart rate and sweating. So we would expect to see changes.

"But a lot more work is needed to determine whether these changes do provide added value."