Criminal Justice

LTVN content does not constitute legal advice. Visitors should read the terms of use carefully when reviewing any such content.





RSS Feeds





The Truth on Lie Detectors
The Truth About Lie Detectors
It's inventors called it "infallible." Would they have passed their own test?

Transcript

Coming Soon!

Experts

Coming Soon!

File Notes

THE POLYGRAPH: WHAT'S IT GOOD FOR?

Polygraphs are routinely used in criminal and in some civil investigations. But they are rarely used as evidence in court.

As early as 1923, a federal appeals court precluded the introduction of polygraph evidence, finding in United States v. Frye that they were not generally accepted in the scientific community. While polygraph tests are commonly used in police investigations in the US, no defendant or witness can be forced to undergo the test.

Despite refinements to the test, judges have yet to recognize the test as sufficiently reliable to admit it into evidence at trials. Thus far, only one state, New Mexico, admits polygraph testing in front of juries under certain circumstances.

Sexual offenders are now routinely polygraphed in many states and it is often a mandatory condition of probation or parole. In Texas, a state appellate court has upheld the testing of sex offenders under community supervision and has also upheld written statements given by sex offenders if they have commited a further offense with new victims. These statements are then used when a motion is filed to revoke probation and the probationer may then be sentenced to prison for having violated his or her probation.

One federal law, known as the Employee Polygraph Protection Act prohibits most private employers from using lie detector tests, either for pre-employment screening or during the course of employment. Employers generally may not require or request any employee or job applicant to take a lie detector test, or discharge, discipline, or discriminate against an employee or job applicant for refusing to take a test or for exercising other rights under the Act. Employers may not use or inquire about the results of a lie detector test or discharge or discriminate against an employee or job applicant on the basis of the results of a test, or for filing a complaint, or for participating in a proceeding under the Act.

Subject to restrictions, the Act permits polygraph tests to be administered to certain job applicants of security service firms (armored car, alarm, and guard) and of pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors and dispensers. Subject to restrictions, the Act also permits polygraph testing of certain employees of private firms who are reasonably suspected of involvement in a workplace incident (theft, embezzlement, etc.) that resulted in specific economic loss or injury to the employer.



THE COMMENT FILE (1)Add Comment
Infallible? Hardly
by Matthew, Monday, September 17, 2007 - 03:49 PM
This makes me think of an episode of The Wire that I saw a couple years ago. In it, this one detective gives a suspect a lie-detector test and then goes to consult with the polygraph tech. And she says to him "So is he lying?" And the tech says "Well detective, if you want me to say he's lying then the results can be skewed that way, if you want me to say he's telling the truth the results can be skewed that way." Then the detective shakes her head and says "Now I can see why this s#$@'s inadmissable."

Makes me think that was less fiction than I had thought.

File Your Comment

busy
 
Next >
Case-in-Point: Watch What Happens on CLIENTELEVISION