The Polygraph As A Truth Detector

The polygraph as a truth detectorEmployment Standards Act leads one to conclusions
1984very similar to the B.C. Civil Liberties Association's: the
Summarypolygraph test is a humbug of subjective, arbitrary and
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association believes that therecontradictory procedures that does not detect lies or
is convincing evidence to suggest that the use of theguilt any more effectively, and in many cases not as
polygraph is arbitrary, subjective, biased towardwell (because of procedural and machine bias), as
accusations of guilt and claims of very high validity areinterviews and cross examination that are already
scientifically indefensible. However, even if one is notcommon tools of psychology, police work and the
willing to be persuaded by evidence on these matters,courts. The compounded danger in the instances of
one must admit, at the very least, that there is nopolygraphs lies in the sanctioned role that untrained
scientific opinion whatsoever concerning the validity ofpersons with crude devices play in harrying innocent
polygraph testing. In fact, there is extremely widepersons in commercial and legal settings. To
divergence over the validity of the test.paraphrase an expert, it is the idiocy of idiocies. We
In these circumstances, the onus is clearly on theurge its removal as an avenue of arbitrary persecution.
proponents of the polygraph test to establish aThe background
convincing scientific case for the claims of high validityThe polygraph procedure and machine is an accretion
that are made by polygraph operators. In other words,of 1930s technology and popularized psychology
the burden of proof rests with the lie detector industryrooted not in practices of modern science, but rather
to satisfy the scientific community and legislators thatbased on the traditions of polygraph testing itself. In
there is convincing evidence to support claims of ninetythat sense, a polygraph examination is a self-fulfilling
percent or greater accuracy that are commonly madeprocess, "measuring" a series of physical signs without
by polygraph operators. Without such agreement, itthe machine and drawing subjective, psychological
seems utterly irresponsible to allow the use of such asounding conclusions in varying ways depending upon
device in situations where it may ultimately interferethe mental state and set and training of each, and the
with the liberty of innocent citizens.rapport between both, the examination subject and the
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association urges theexaminer. The result of this exercise, associative of
Government of British Columbia to follow the examplethe monitoring machines of Scientology, is a series of
of Ontario in banning the mandatory use of polygraphsconclusions about the veracity of specific statements
by employers in the province. We would go further:or guilt generally, conclusions unsupportable by
since the evidence we have presented throwsconsistent scientific logic or by confirmation by other
considerable shadows of doubt on the usefulness ofmeans. In fact, there is convincing evidence to suggest
the polygraph test per se, we see no useful purposethat the procedure is much more likely to create
for the procedure as either screening procedure forvictims of false allegation than it is likely to detect
police candidates, or in the court system generally, bothpurveyors of falsehood or paragons of guilt-however
of which are uses allowed by Ontario, though there isfalsehood or guilt may be defined. The statistical
no convincing evidence in support of the test in anyillustration at the end of the paper provides an
situation. Ontario's compendium of information, includingillustration of this phenomenon.
the Morand Report, in their 1983 amendment to their