Are Polygraphs junk science or underutilized forensic technology? They occupy the most unusual position in the hierarchy of forensic instruments, universally rejected in courts as not even meeting the Frye test of acceptability in the scientific community, yet enjoying huge mindshare within law enforcement and an astonishing growth rate within the federal government.

With the CIA’s recent firing of Mary O. McCarthy after she failed an internal polygraph, the issue is moving front and center and the question will have to be addressed. What exactly is the role of the polygraph in law enforcement? If the machine is insufficiently reliable to be used in court to evaluate credibility, how can it be used to justify a life-changing decision like job termination?

I regularly see posts in my local defense listserve from members asking for polygraph referrals, and the requests are growing. I always wonder what’s driving these requests. And in many of the major criminal cases I’ve handled recently, police have asked if my client would be willing to take a polygraph. The fact that these cops are even *asking* me this is pretty astonishing. What exactly are they going to do with this information? If my client passes the test, will they drop their investigation? I don’t think so. And if he fails, the results can’t be used in court. So, what’s the point again?

I’m concerned that this renewed interest in shortcuts to the truth is going to push law enforcement in the direction of heavier reliance on polygraphs, and eventually pressure the courts to relent. After all, if courts are willing to allow the results of Breathalyzers in court, it’s not that big a step to start admitting polygraph results. And that’s just bad science.

Read this Washington Post article for their take.

RP

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 2nd, 2006 at 11:39 pm and is filed under News, Junk Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.