The polygraph as applied: Are we focusing on technology at the expense of everything else that works?
Posted: 22 Aug 2018 11:51 AM PDT
By David S. Prescott, LICSW, Kieran McCartan, Ph.D., &Alissa Ackerman, Ph.D.
Nothing divides the professional and academic community that works in the field of sexual abuse quite like the polygraph. It is a debate that has went on internationally for decades. A fascinating wrinkle in policy and the law recently came to the authors’ attention. In at least one state, there is a policy holding that people on probation cannot be sent back to prison for failing a polygraph examination. This makes sense given the current status of the research around the polygraph and its admissibility in court. However, in this state, the same people can be sent back to prison if the examiner believes they have deliberately manipulated the results of the test. This has resulted in at least one examiner expressing certainty that many of his examinees have tried to influence the results, with many of them becoming incarcerated as a result of the examiner’s belief. While highlights the main issue that the polygraph faces, there are a multitude of different audiences (public, judiciary, professionals, academics, etc) all with different attitudes, experiences, evidence bases and strongly held views.
We want to be clear that this is more a problem of how professionals use or even abuse the power that they have over clients/examinees than it is about the polygraph itself, although empirically separating the effects of the polygraph from the examiner may be more complicated than many would think. The good news is that the Department of Corrections in that state is having a fresh look at its policies. The bad news is the context of professionals believing in their approach to the detriment of their clients. In some cases, one wonders how much deception by the examiner in the process is acceptable given the potential costs and lack of truly informed consent. These kinds of ethical questions certainly exist elsewhere, but rarely get the attention they deserve with vulnerable populations such as those for whom basic liberties are in the balance.
To put all of this into perspective, it can be useful to review what research has shown time and again: Punishment on its own neither reduces risk nor deters crime. While many questions about treatment remain debatable, people who complete treatment programs emerge at lower risk. Community supervision can also further reduce risk, and yet there is still no credible evidence that the polygraph, as currently applied, is improving outcomes, except in the opinions of its adherents.
This, in turn leads to further questions. When we apply the polygraph as described above, with examiners being able to send people to prison so easily, at what point are we not only interfering with methods that would promote community safety, but also denying justice? (as a side note, it is important to note that others in our field, including therapists, can also wield undue negative influence under the wrong conditions).
We then need to turn to other questions, such as what our goals actually are? Are we suing the available methods to reduce risk? Build better lives? Assist those who have been abused? Or continue the punishment? Our belief is that punishment is punishment and rehabilitation is rehabilitation, and that when we confuse the two, neither can be entirely effective.
Finally, there is a real question of the polygraph’s best use. Does a sexual history polygraph really provide as much information as one might hope or is an examination into whether or not someone is basically following the rules help them – and the community – more. Do other methods, such as polygraphing people on their thoughts and fantasies simply muddy the waters through a belief that one’s fantasies equals their future behavior”?
Additionally, we would also encourage a consideration of how the polygraph is used internationally. While the polygraph is not necessarily an example of American exceptionalism, it might as well be because the majority of other countries internationally do not use the polygraph in the same way, with the same frequency or with the having the same impact as in the USA. For example, in the UK the polygraph was only introduced in 2014for high risk individuals, it is by no means used with all people that have committed a sexual offence, and is not admissible in court. Whereas in other countries, like Australia, Israel, Sweden and New Zealand (to name a few) the polygraph is not used with individuals that have committed a sexual offence.
Unfortunately, recent dialog has focused more on choosing sides – for and against the polygraph – than sorting through the various issues and balancing them against the human rights of each client or examinee. We have to keep in mind, in our desire to discover the truth and seek answers from those that commit sexual abuse, that the consequences of false positive (as well as the resulting conviction and related outcomes) can be significant for victims and the accused.
Perhaps before we can answer questions about the polygraph, it is better that we return to the basic questions of why we do this work and what all our science tells us about the way people become safer and grow beyond their traumatic experiences.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
We should also consider who profits from polygraph testing. Here’s a good example from Colorado. https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/contact7/colorado-governor-vetoes-bill-that-banned-conflicts-of-interest-on-sex-offender-management-board
There are some excellent comments here. Great food for thought.
True story… I beat my polygraphs by watching youtube videos of how to beat a polygraph by retired law enforcement officers that used to administer them to both suspects and other police officers ( it takes practice because they do try to trick you ) The hardest part for me was holding my laughter inside from bursting out every time the ” experienced ” polygraph examiner said I passed. It is an utter joke, complete waste of time and money and it is no wonder their inadmissible in many courts, and especially Federal courts.
Polygraph. What a joke. Completely subjective and in control of the moron conducting the test. When is this country going to wake up? Most likely never.
Read the book called A Tremor in the Blood by David T. Lykken Phd.
The lie detector is as applied a tool of interrogation and NOT a means at truth.
Watch this interesting video message on how churches fail to exercise their own beliefs by not standing against the registry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK6O5-3pfKc
I take a polygraph every year and pass it every year but I consider it a waste of time and money as nothing positive in my probation ever results. Years ago while I was still in counselling, the polygrapher and my counselor accused me of trying to ‘groom’ a youth in church as a result of a polygraph. I challenged them. I put $1000 on the ‘table’ and said if they could come up with one name in six months the $1000 was theirs. Of course I asked them to put up $1000 if they didn’t come up with a name. Their response…get angry with me. The results…no name to this day and that was 12 or 13 years ago. Their was no name to come up with. Florida uses the polygraph to make the bureaucrats think they are really controlling sex offenses…what a farce! The polygrapher I now see annually cannot understand why I am still on probation. As I explain to everyone of the same persuasion…$$$$.
One sentence in the above article really got my attention:
“Do other methods, such as polygraphing people on their thoughts and fantasies simply muddy the waters through a belief that one’s fantasies equals their future behavior”?
My contention is that punishing the possession of child pornography 827.071(5) is in fact a mindcrime such as shown in Minority Report. You are being punished for the future assaults the so-called authorities claim you will commit. Many of the restrictions placed on those who violated this statute, be it by probation or registration requirement, should be unconstitutional since no physical crime was actually committed.
I don’t buy into the fallacy that looking at a picture is the same as sexually assaulting that person over and over again. Bollocks!
My old treatment provider always claimed that viewing CP re-victimizes the person depicted every time it’s viewed. I asked why that reasoning didn’t apply to the federal agents and prosecutors and/or their state counterparts when they chose those videos for their stings. Never got an answer – shocking, huh?
Appalling! Law enforcement can “consume” all the child porn they want because they are posting most of it!
https://floridaactioncommittee.org/usdoj-announces-arrest-of-2300-for-alleged-online-child-sex-crimes/
JZ, you must remember that law enforcement folks are so far above evil that they are not affected by child porn. No wait, what about the FDLE investigator who just got reservations at the ‘cross bar hotel’ or the 15 year vet cop who just got charged with molestation of a family member? Seems we may have the inmates in charge of the institution. We must remember that we are all human and can go though events or phases in our lives that take us out of character. The sooner our ‘leaders’ accept that and make forgiveness a viable option the better our society will be. There is no value in making citizens permanent criminals as many of our laws do today.
That is a GREAT comeback. I love it. And so true.
Case in point. The detective that was over my Craigslist sting, was arrested in 2016 for molesting 3 eight year-old boys. No doubt as a result of using all those pics for his stings over the years. I feel like writing him a letter in prison and asking him if all those federal dollars he received for running those stings was worth it now. LOL.
I don’t mind taking a polygraph. I pass it every time. My complaint is that passing it means nothing to probation other than a ‘check in the block’.