Polygraph testing

[TMCM]

I have come across some threads where some of the posters have insisted that BS subject his/her WS to a polygraph test.

 

Please consider the following information regarding polygraph testing:

 

The Truth About Polygraph

 

By Theodore Ponticelli

 

The accuracy of any polygraph test depends on two factors; the competence and training of the practitioner and the polygraph instrument employed to record physiological changes during the actual detection of deception test.

 

The polygraph instrument is not a magical device with extrasensory powers. It's simply a device designed to record physiological changes in breathing, blood pressure, pulse rate and galvanic skin change or body resistance and the increase and decrease of adrenaline during the introduction of the test question.

 

The analog polygraph instrument, when functioning as designed, is 100 percent capable of recording necessary physiological changes in order to make a determination of truth or deception. A faulty instrument will not record reactions that cause a suspect to appear truthful when lying or deceptive reactions when answering questions truthfully. The instrument will produce abnormal patterns that are difficult to evaluate and are therefore, considered inconclusive. The newly marketed computer polygraph is not as reliable as the analog even though test results are analyzed by computerized algorithms to arrive at a conclusion. The polygraph is not a substitute for a thorough investigation. Often an officer assigned to a particular case feels he or she can shortcut procedures by requesting multiple polygraph examinations in the hope of identifying the person that committed the crime. The requesting officer should exhaust all existing investigative leads before requesting a polygraph.

 

The first problem with the computer polygraph is it is incapable of recording the necessary physiological changes as the analog polygraph instrument. In addition, the computer polygraph is incapable of processing comparative responses and it's known to produce a high degree of false positive test results. A false positive test is when a person tells the truth and the computer polygraph indicates a high degree of deception. An examiner may have a 99 percent lying test result, but 65 percent of those can be false-positive -- innocent, looking guilty. This alone invalidates the computer polygraph although proponents of the computer polygraph attempt to correct the problem by analyzing the test with long hand math and fail to recognize the computer does not record a full complement of physiology as does the analog polygraph. Research at the University of Utah revealed that false-positive test results have a greater risk of error than the false-negative (people who appear to be telling the truth, but are not).

 

Inadequate training and lack of standards for most polygraph practitioners is the other problem the industry suffers. As a classic example, a police officer who attends a polygraph course for a short 6 or even 10 weeks cannot possibly learn the applied theory of detection of deception and expect to return to their police departments and be competent polygraph examiners. The training should be a graduate degree program with concentrated academics in psycho-physiology, human behavior and practical hands-on laboratory research.

 

The American Polygraph Association (APA) in all appearance should be the watchdog of the industry, but it is no more than a trade association with minimal standards as to what a polygraph school should teach. The APA scratches the surface with school inspections and student review. As a matter of fact, the APA was denied authority by the Department of Education for academically accrediting polygraph schools, therefore, the APA possesses little or no authority to endorse a post-secondary educational institution.

 

The Federal Government has a polygraph examiner school. They train most federal agents from the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Drug Enforcement, Defense Intelligence Agency and Military Investigative agencies. During 1970, this author participated in the government's school course that was being systems engineered. Every potential student would receive the same scientifically standard training in order to maintain a high degree of reliability and validity. Since 1995 the school has liberalized its curriculum and does not seem concerned with graduates who return to their agencies and change the procedures without the benefit of scientific research. What was once known as a model school has now sunk to the low depths of academia.

 

Ironically, those polygraph examiners from federal and municipal law enforcement agencies hide behind their badges and want the public to believe in their accuracies, which isn't the case. The majority of law enforcement polygraph examiners lack intellectual soundness and knowledge of human behavior as related to detecting deception. In addition, most presuppose a person's guilt with lack of probable cause and tangible evidence. As an example, if a woman reported to the police that her estranged husband molested their child, law enforcement has been known to fail to investigate or attempt to prove or disprove the allegation made by the complainant. The estranged husband would then be administered a polygraph test and the results of the test become spurious in many cases. As another example, if a detective informs the polygraph examiner that the suspect is good for the crime, in many cases the polygraph results will be reported as deceptive. Why? Many reasons, although the first is dishonesty or incompetence. The same degree of incompetence in polygraph exists in the private sector and the reason is the same, inferior training and lack of integrity.

 

In the hands of competent polygraph practitioners the accuracy should be nearly 96 percent with a 4 percent margin of error. However, 4 percent is a large margin when considered inconclusive, this is most always caused by the practitioner and seldom by the person undergoing the polygraph test.

 

Aggressive interrogation before a polygraph examination is one of several causes of erroneous polygraph test results. Psychological sensitivity, as consistently being accused of a crime one did not commit, can and will produce false positive results.

 

In the case of John and Patsy Ramsey over the murder of their daughter, Jon-Benet, it is doubtful that the results of their polygraph tests had any degree of accuracy. If anything, the results were inconclusive. Why? Because both Patsy and John were overwhelmingly psychologically sensitized by the news media, therefore both polygraph tests are invalid even if it indicated deception, which this author believes was the case even though Patsy and John were probably innocent. It becomes obvious the polygraph practitioner rendered an opinion based on personal beliefs and not scientific leverage. In the same case, suspects were also subjected to polygraph testing and exculpated. It is this author's concern that the actual murderer of Jon-Benet was set free simply because of incompetence and lack of a scientific approach to criminal investigation.

 

The polygraph has never been and never should be the panacea of any issue or investigation. However, polygraph better serves the community as an exculpation tool and not only an identification device for extracting confessions. Often a police detective will request that a suspect undergo a polygraph examination and promises if the suspect does well he or she will be released, well knowing the polygraph results will more than likely produce deception. Why is this? Most police polygraph examiners do not want to contradict a fellow detective and integrity is in question or the practitioner is ill trained and doesn't know any better.

 

No one should have to undergo a polygraph examination if the officer came under political scrutiny. This author participated in legislation to enact a police officer's bill of rights and within spells out that the polygraph will be employed on a voluntary basis. The citizen who is a suspect in a criminal investigation should have the same option.

 

Reliability of a polygraph technique should not be confused with validity. Reliability is the measurement of the technique, determining continuity and consistency in the use of the polygraph instrument and testing procedures.

 

Validity of a polygraph technique is determining the accuracy of the entire approach to detecting deception or exculpating a person who is innocent of the crime under investigation. So that abusive use of polygraph is discontinued, the public should be educated and made aware that the polygraph is no more than an investigative aid.

 

If the admissibility of polygraph evidence is permitted in courts of law the practitioner and polygraph instrument should be the focal point of consideration to the trier of fact.

 

********************************************** Bio-Sketch of Theodore Ponticelli

 

Theodore Ponticelli is a former instructor at the US Defense Department of Polygraph School and has been a practicing polygraphist since 1966. During this time, he served in Southeast Asia, where he was involved in war crime investigations. He was also an advisor to countries of the Middle East and Central America. There he advised on methods of determining truth and deception.

 

During 1988, while assigned to the US Embassy in El Salvador, Mr. Ponticelli participated in a complex US funded, judicial reform program where he addressed issues involving the falsely accused and fabricated evidence. Mr. Ponticelli is a former scientific investigator with the Los Angeles Police Department, and while there, he was involved in internal affairs and organized crime investigations.

 

He has guest-lectured at Stanford, Pepperdine and Loyola Law Schools in California and is often called upon to advise law enforcement in California, Idaho and Washington and is a contributor to Police Magazine.

 

Mr. Ponticelli has qualified as an expert witness in Federal District Court in California, New York, New Mexico and Arizona.

[carhill]

IMO, if it's bad enough to require the very expensive services of a professional polygraphist, it's bad enough to utilize the equally expensive services of a competent lawyer. Personally, I wouldn't bother with a polygraphist unless I lived in an at-fault state and issues of child custody/safety were involved. Even then, the results aren't necessarily conclusive legally and can be challenged in court. I sometimes wonder if people suggesting such things have ever had to actually open their wallet and pay for them. Since the average test takes three to four hours in total, plus any court time for testimony, I can't see the option being much under a grand for a competent polygraphist. Then there's the lawyer fees applying legal to the polygraph results. Tic-toc. Maybe some people are made of money. I've paid enough legal fees to know I'm not. Thanks for the article. Educational

[carhill]

A gun serves the same purpose, if 'pressure' is the goal. In the case of polygraph, no one is legally bound (or bound in any other way) to submit to it. I just refused. What are you going to do now? Not hire me? Point a gun to my head? Sue me for divorce? See this slippery slope? It's just a waste of time in relationships, IMO. Would you really want a person 'broken' by the polygraph as a partner? A person who refused it? Is 'sweating' a 'suspect' you purportedly care for and love healthy? What if you were wrong?

[dreamingoftigers]

Hi

 

I would only use the polygraph tool as a possible way for a WS to regain a measure of trust. Polygraphs today have become a standard of sexual addiction treatment.

 

When polygraphs as used as a way to "get the goods" then they would damage whatever is left as a potential way to repair the relationship.

 

In certain cases I believe where a spouse is acting very fishy and is also acting although they want to restore trust I would presentvtye polygraph as a clear option. Up here they can be obtained for $500. Expensive, but not terribly far out of reach.

 

In my case nothing short of a polygraph (even though accuracy would not be 100%, I am also not omnimpotent) would restore the trust in my marriage.

 

As well, many sexual addicts go for a yearly polygraph to keep both themselves accountable and show their partner that they are what they claim to be. They are a number of then at dailstrength.org in the sexual/pornography addiction group. I think it is a much better option then the spouse feeling suck to the stomach with suspicion not knowing one way or the other if their partner who has lied to them in the past is reverting to their old behavior. They know that at the year's end they will have a grasp on the truth.

 

And if course finding a qualified examiner is crucial.

[carhill]

If a spouse who has been carrying something like this around for 30 years is to scared to even contemplate asking his spouse to take one; much less to actually ask her; we've learned quite a bit and no one has had to pay a penny.

My short response is, and I lived this, my exW would have simply called your bluff, as she did mine.

 

"Ok, let's get divorced"

 

She knew I didn't have a pre-nup, so it was win-win for her. I never considered marriage to be about out-smarting one's spouse, but it was a valuable and expensive lesson.

 

Every spouse is different, so psychological tools like you suggested may indeed work on a different psychology. I'll keep that in mind, if ever presented with such a challenge again.

[TMCM]

TMCM,

 

The scientific accuracy/reliability, or admissibility in court, of a polygraph test is completely beside the point.

 

The FBI, CIA, and other security agencies don't insist that their employees submit to polygraphs because they actually believe the information obtained is scientifically accurate, or admissible in court.

 

They require polygraphs because it puts pressure on the employees. Dishonest employees will often make pre-test confessions, or, under the strain of the test itself, will make a confession during the test.

 

It's an interrogation technique, a way to "sweat" the suspect.

 

I believe that the testing would be more welcomed if the one's behind the push to have someone else being tested, would be made to take the test first.

 

In drifter's thread, from which this one is a spin-off, my mere mention of "polygraph" caused him to have an over the top, emotional, irrational reaction.

 

What does that tell us? Does it tell us in a factually objective manner that drifter doesn't know everything about his wife's infidelities? No, it does not. But it DOES tells us a lot about drifter's state of mind--that he FEARS that 1) either she will flatly refuse the polygraph, which might be interpreted as her fear of the results of taking it--and not simply because of the general scientific invalidity of such tests; or 2) that she WILL take it, and the examiner will opine that she exercised "deception" during the test; or 3) she will agree to take it, but the pressure will get to her, and she will make some sort of pre-test confession to further infidelities during their marriage; or 4) the mere request will cause a confrontation between drifter and his wife, and it is the confrontation itself that he fears. As he has been fearing, for the past 30 odd years.

 

This conclusion is consistent with drifter's carrying this around for 30 years.

 

So, we learned something of significance by merely mentioning the possibility of such a test on a message board--we learned that drifter fears to even contemplate requesting his wife to take a polygraph test.

 

Which is precisely the point. I asked him, and I learned something about him. He should ask his wife, and see what if anything he learns, about her.

 

As I said in Drifter's thread, I believe that your post may have been perceived more as agenda driven. Your message may have been perceived by him more as goading than suggesting.

[dreamingoftigers]

I haven't seen drifter's thread (or maybe I have but I haven't been lurking around as much). Using the suggestion of a polygraph but not to follow-through is probably as inconclusive as not having one at all.

 

1. If the innocent spouse is genuinely offended it would just look like an attempt to control or be "right" at the expense of their character.

2. Many WS who are liars to begin with would act willing as a way to call the bluff in the hopes that their spouse would be satisfied with that and nit follow-through.

3. Many yutzes will try to beat the polygraph.

4. Many will continue to lie even with repeated failing results, this is why standard SA treatment suggests if the first one is failed to go back to a therapist, work it through and then retest, if it is failed again, go back to the therapist and then attend another examiner. There are of course other variables that come into play after two failed polys.

[dreamingoftigers]

Of course if you are at the point where you would like a polygraph then there is a good chance that other factors would go in to ending the marriage. That's almost a given.

 

The point I think that Carhill is making is that by the time a relationship goes that far, it isn't worth hauling up from the bottom of the barrel and will likely only cause further dissent, and expensive dissent at that.

 

The point that I am making overall in the thread is that the polygraph can actually be a method to restore trust instead of a threat or pressure tactic. Quite frankly threats and pressure tactics run very contrary to female nature in general and we are quite likely to tell one if you guys to shove it on that point alone. Controlling guys are a dime a dozen, however if it was offered up as exactly what it is: a way to bring back some peace and trust, there is a much higher chance a woman would submit to it, regardless of what she did or didn't do.

[dreamingoftigers]

I agree fully that any spouse requesting a polygraph should offer to take one first as well.

 

You can't ask if a spouse what you are not willing to do yourself.

[SoleMate]

Among the many overwhelming problems with the possible use of polygraphs in relationships (such as reliability, and the fact that demanding a polygraph is inherently destructive to intimate relationships) is this:

 

The kind of person who demands a polygraph is unlikely to accept its results if they are exculpatory.

[TMCM]

What "agenda" would that be? What "agenda" do you think I have?

 

If drifter perceives that you have a zero tolerance policy for all cheating spouses, then any valid message that you want to convey to him will be deflected back.

[John Michael Kane]

If there comes a point where one needs to have a polygraph or having to resort to some other technique to see if their spouse is lying or not, it's just a waste of time and money.