Part 1
Principally, technology was meant to increase human efficiency. However, incorporating technology in specific industries has elicited significant controversy and heated debates. For instance, the adoption and incorporation of neuroscientific technologies in the criminal justice system have drawn criticism and praise in equal measure. A polygraph test, commonly known as a lie detector test, is a criminal investigation procedure that involves recording and analysis of human stress indicators such as heartbeat rate, perspiration, blood pressure, and skin conductivity to establish possible intentional deceit. Usually, the polygraph examiner analyses the vital signs graph for every question to detect potential lies. The procedure was developed as a technological alternative to the traditional oral interrogation used in most jurisdictions. The continued use of polygraphy tests in criminal investigations has attracted mixed reactions. Antagonists of the procedure emphasize that the technology is scientifically flawed and mental and psychological torture that violates fundamental human rights. On the contrary, pro-technologists insist on the accuracy of the procedure compared to traditional practices. Amidst the claims and counterclaims, the big question remains, “How effective is polygraphy in criminal justice?”
Discussions around the effectiveness of the lie detector test have stretched to its effects on the victims’ moral behavior on subsequent tasks. According to a study by Peleg, Ayal, Ariely, and Hochman (2019), feedback from polygraph tests leads to less dishonesty, thereby reducing intentional deceit in criminal interrogation. In this study, the researchers sought to establish the impact of moral reminders on human behavior by subjecting participants to mock polygraph tests similar to those carried out during criminal investigations. The study’s findings show the lie detector induces self-signaling, which invokes past behavior to affect future moral standards. The researchers further established that though the human mind is naturally inclined to maintain a positive moral self, there are equally natural tendencies to gain from unethical behavior. The resultant conflict creates a psychological tension known as ethical dissonance, which inhibits dishonest behavior if sufficiently substantial.
Peleg, Ayal, Ariely, and Hochman (2019) further argue that the design of lie detectors increases their accuracy and efficiency in lie detection. The idea behind creating the technology was to develop an alternative approach to lie detection with reference points. The previous analysis largely depended on reports given by investigation officers. Despite the qualifications and competence of such officers, some reports exhibited attempts to incriminate innocent victims and collusion between victims and officers to produce favorable determinations. Hence, lie detector technology incorporates several aspects that make it more accurate and credible. For instance, besides psychological manipulation, people undergoing polygraphy tests are meant to believe that their responses to the various questions asked by the interrogator will be independently analyzed and verified by an infallible lie detection machine to generate feedback. In other words, the fear of potential detection through machine-generated feedback compels victims to remain as truthful as possible, thereby helping the examiner to establish truths from lies by analyzing the psychological indicators. However, machines are only used in some of the processes. As a result, polygraph tests in mock juror studies often have no consequence on the final verdict.
While supporting polygraphy as an effective technology in lie detection, Peleg, Ayal, Ariely, and Hochman (2019) equally point out that the technology may be ineffective in some circumstances. For instance, psychological manipulation occurs in several ways. In some cases, the victim may be threatened with losing mental stability. Other cases of psychological manipulation involve instances such as witness coaching, where one is trained to respond to certain questions. Finally, the test environment may also be designed to intimidate the victim, thereby manipulating him psychologically. In all the conditions stated above, the polygraph recordings will not be a truthful representation of the victim’s stress indicators. Consequently, the accuracy and credibility of the technology will be compromised. Therefore, the effectiveness of lie detectors combines several aspects, some of which are only known to polygraph analysts, giving room for potential manipulation to get a predetermined outcome.
The accuracy and effectiveness of polygraphy cannot be generalized since such parameters change from one group to another. For instance, in an article by Schindler et al. (2020), the four contributing researchers argued that the technology is more accurate and effective in lay people than offenders and criminals. According to the study, people with criminal backgrounds have better manipulation skills and can successfully mask stress indicators even when telling lies. While investigating the effectiveness of the lie detector on establishing truth from offenders, the authors established that laypersons often hold stereotypic beliefs about deception cues but do not pay any attention to such when undergoing polygraphy tests. As a result, the decree of the accuracy of polygraph tests for laypersons is significantly high, especially for offenders undergoing their first test.
On the contrary, liars, repeat offenders, and seasoned criminals often show few deception cues, leading to undetected deceit. Therefore, the effectiveness of lie detector technology in criminal justice should be subject to establishing criminal history, which limits its application. For instance, during interrogation, establishing criminal history is one of the factors under investigation; the interrogator seeks to establish the relationship between the current offense and the offender’s previous involvement. As a result, the lie detector becomes less effective if its accuracy is tied to pre-established criminal history.
Sustained criticism of the lie detector technology and its application in criminal justice is evident in a research article by Kotsoglou (2021), where the researcher referred to the technology as zombie forensics regarding its application in Wales and England. Unlike other articles on the effectiveness of polygraphy in criminal justice, the article by Kotsoglou (2021) takes an entirely legal perspective to expose the weaknesses and technical illegalities of the procedure. In the introductory remarks, the author reckons that despite evident structural and logic-grammatical inconsistencies in polygraphy, the technology has always found its way back into the public discourse as a toolkit of the Wales and English criminal justice systems. For instance, while lie detectors are extensively used in Wales and England’s criminal justice systems to extract information from released offenders, there is a legal cloud around the technology. According to the author, the presupposition in England and Wales’s criminal justice systems that lie detectors can detect deceit is founded on an obsolete psychological paradigm. Secondly, the author argued that the legal requirement that expert evidence must be sufficiently founded on reliable scientific claims further rules out the admissibility of polygraph evidence in a criminal process. Lastly, the author claims that the admission and use of polygraph tests infringe on released offenders’ rights and expose the public to criminal behavior.
Amidst the endless ethical and legal debates around polygraphy, scholars have undertaken practical studies to establish the effectiveness of the technology. An article by Yu et al. (2019) is based on an experiment to develop polygraphy’s effectiveness in detecting passengers ferrying illegal items. In the two experiments, the researchers sought to explain the extent to which polygraphy can correctly identify criminals in transit using their psychological responses about possible cargo being transported by travelers. The assumption in the two experiments was that guilty passengers would often exhibit guilt-related responses. In contrast, passengers without illegal items show steady answers without significant alterations during the polygraph tests. Using a population of 78 randomly selected participants, the study found that polygraphy can effectively differentiate between common passengers, drug traffickers, and terrorists using their psychological responses to critical crime-related questions. For example, the researchers established significant heart rate accelerations and peak-to-peak amplitude of GSR indicative of guilt in committing certain crimes targeted by certain questions.
Nevertheless, the study equally established that polygraphy can incorrectly identify one as innocent if one committed a crime that is not directly related to the questions being asked. As a result, a second guilt condition is required to enable polygraphy to differentiate between multiple crimes. As a result, the article recommended additional discriminant analysis to increase detection accuracy.
Another article by Brennen and Magnussen explores the prospects of the practical applicability of lie detectors in criminal justice. According to this article, researchers generally agree that no single simple verbal; clue can be used to detect deceit explicitly. The article mainly focused on verbal clues as an element of polygraphy that helps detect lies. According to the authors, comprehensive meta-analysis has confirmed that verbal clues can effectively discriminate between true and false statements. However, the reliability of such clues is circumstantial. For instance, even with automated verbal clues detectors of deception and complex computational techniques, machines cannot fully describe the human cognitive system.
Consequently, the application of polygraphy in lie detection is limited to the nature of the information required and the individuals involved. The authors concluded that polygraphy needs to avoid “the ossification of canon,” often associated with tendencies for technical fields to develop voluminous literature that makes it almost impossible to challenge the status quo. According to the authors, verbal detection in polygraphy is mainly pegged on using experimental psychology to respond to questions of high practical importance alongside an unwillingness to accept outcomes of solid science. As a result, polygraphy results based on the interpretation of verbal clues only offer optimism on lie detection without providing a commanding conclusion.
Part 2
The principal objective of any criminal justice system is to uphold justice and fairness. As a result, the need to ensure criminal proceedings are founded on substantial and credible evidence has broadly been cited as the strongest pillar of justice and fairness in criminal justice. Naturally, one would expect all stakeholders within the criminal justice system to embrace any technology that seeks to increase efficiency in criminal investigations and the accuracy of collected information. However, polygraphy, primarily hyped as a significant technological breakthrough in lie detection, is yet to offer the required efficiency and accuracy. Despite the considerable gains from lie detectors, there is a need to address some inherent flaws that limit the reliability of the technology in criminal investigations.
Principally, technology is an indispensable component in every sector of modern society. Despite criticism, lie detectors have significantly improved criminal systems’ justice and fairness. For instance, according to Peleg, Ayal, Ariely, and Hochman (2019), the mere introduction of technology in criminal investigations has significantly reduced dishonesty, especially when the victim’s or suspect’s moral integrity is in question. The beneficial outcomes of lie detectors are mainly pegged on overcoming human errors in criminal investigations. For instance, unlike traditional oral questioning, lie detectors provide data for future reference, thereby eliminating potential personal bias leading to the criminalization of innocent individuals. Secondly, polygraphy has significantly increased credibility in criminal investigations. At any given time, there is always a reference point between the recorded polygraphy readings and the victim’s natural data (pulse, blood pressure, heartbeat rate). Therefore, one cannot claim to have been framed or taken out of context. Hence, regardless of the minor flaws and weaknesses, the reliability and performance of the lie detectors are tied to the circumstances under which the technology is recommended and the nature of the truths under investigation.
Contrary to the dominant public perceptions, polygraphy is only a partially machine-executed process. According to Peleg, Ayal, Ariely, and Hochman (2019), lie detectors work on neuroscientific technology, which combines machine capabilities and psychological manipulation. As a result, the accuracy and reliability of the technology are more tied to the victim being cross-examined than the technology itself. For example, for first-time victims, the belief that the polygraph machine will independently generate results to detect truth and lies significantly affects their behavior during interrogation. For instance, the guilty and innocent often try to be as truthful as possible to avoid incorrect profiling by the machine. While the guilty try to remain honest to avoid potential “legal wrath” for lying, the innocent equally remain truthful to avoid criminalization despite their innocence. The biggest test of the technology comes from repeat offenders with previous experience. For instance, anyone with prior knowledge that the detection of lies and truths in polygraphy is based on human analysis and interpretation of the graphical changes in heat beat, blood pressure, skin conductivity, and other stress indicators can easily manipulate the technology to get a favorable result. As a result, lie detectors are only partially perse. However, criminal justice systems cannot implement them as independent technologies. Existing literature has shown that such technology exhibits inconsistencies likely to trigger investigative errors and criminal injustice.
The contributions by Kotsoglou (2021) present another side of the lie detector technology that has attracted extensive legal criticism; the legal admissibility of lie detectors. As previously stated, lie detectors are based on psychological manipulation and physiological responses. Peleg, Ayal, Ariely, and Hochman (2019) further emphasized that the outcomes of the polygraphy tests significantly impact the victim’s morality. The most significant legal question becomes; at what point is polygraphy admissible as an investigative tool in a criminal investigation? Based on the nature of the admission of polygraphy tests and some of the established impacts on the victim’s mental well-being, the technology must be administered to a particular group of criminals who either keep changing their statement versions or are unlikely to tell the truth when subjected to conventional procedures. Such decisions may often require a court order alongside a comprehensive mental examination report before admission. However, in most jurisdictions, such as Wales and England, polygraphy is often deployed as part of the ordinary tools for collecting information from suspects and victims. Worse still, the polygraph test results in such jurisdictions are considered cardinal truth to constitute the foundations of subsequent criminal proceedings despite the glaring inconsistencies and weaknesses of the technology.
Similarly, existing literature has proven that lie detectors cannot be entirely approved as technological solutions to truth detection in criminal justice systems. While the principal objective is establishing the truth and initiating subsequent legal procedures based on such truth, lie detectors are equally bound to lie. According to Schindler et al. (2020), lie detectors are more effective in laypeople with a natural phobia of technology than in repeat offenders and knowledgeable victims with either previous experience with the technology or a clue about the working principles of the lie detectors. Consequently, it is possible for some culprits to successfully and consistently prove innocent on polygraph tests when guilty. How can the above loophole be rectified to increase lie detectors’ efficiency, credibility, and accuracy? Principally, criminal justice cannot be implemented as an automated process where machines are programmed to collect information, process data, and give verdicts; there is constant human intervention at every point.
Consequently, the same interventions should be maintained even with the introduction of technology in criminal justice. For instance, before admitting the tests, efforts should be made as much as possible to retrieve data on the victim’s previous criminal records, mental health, and involvement in incredible activities. While the above information may not give a holistic criminal profile, it is critical in analyzing polygraphy results to detect potential lies presented as truths.
Analysis of existing literature indicates two significant research gaps regarding adopting and incorporating lie detectors in criminal justice systems. First, there is a need for research on the analysis and interpretation of polygraph test results. Technological changes often require additional skills and knowledge to implement and manage such technology effectively. For lie detectors, competent analysts must have a combination of criminal investigation skills and training in human psychology. Hence, there is a need to research the adoption procedure of lie detectors in criminal systems and the personnel managing the technology. For instance, some of the shortcomings of the technology could be tied to human weaknesses in handling the technology. Secondly, systematic rigidness can hinder the success of lie detector technology in criminal justice. Hence, there is a need to research systematic and structural readjustments in the criminal justice system regarding incorporating polygraphy in criminal investigations.
Researching the analysis and interpretation of polygraph test results is also necessary to determine truths and lies. According to the current literature, an increase in heartbeat, pulse rate, blood pressure, and skin conductivity are interpreted as potential signs of deceit. On the other hand, a steady or insignificant change in the parameters above is regarded as truth. In some incidences, verbal clues support the results of analyzing stress indicators. While the above practices are consistent in several jurisdictions, it is worth noting that changes in stress indicators are not necessarily tied to truths and lies. For example, changes in one’s health may trigger stress, whose exhibition is no different from what manifests during polygraph tests. Secondly, a victim who resolves to let fate take control may exhibit similar results on polygraph tests as an innocent person. Such individuals are neither shaken nor frightened by what awaits them, which leads to insignificant changes during lie detection tests. As a result, there is a need to research the criminal and psychological techniques used to make determinations in polygraphy to increase public awareness and support of the technology of criminal justice.
In conclusion, criminal justice is a susceptible legal sector due to its implications on the lives of the affected persons. Just like incomplete investigations can significantly affect the verdicts in criminal cases, wrong and manipulative procedures may equally lead to the criminalization of innocent victims. As a result, the criminal justice system must be flexible enough to adopt robust and efficient technologies to increase the credibility and accuracy of judicial verdicts. However, there is a need for caution in embracing technology, especially where the practice has significantly identified flaws likely to compromise the criminal justice system. Lie detectors are only partially new gadgets in modern criminology. In some jurisdictions, such procedures are implemented as mandatory processes in criminal investigations. In such technologies, the criminal justice system has been designed to embrace technology with human aids, to monitor and periodically review outcomes for improvement. Consequently, jurisdictions intending to adopt and implement polygraphy as part of their criminal investigation procedures must train sufficient personnel and implement adequate checks to avoid potential manipulation and abuse of technology for selfish interests.
References
Brennen, T., & Magnussen, S. (2022). The Science of Lie Detection by Verbal Cues: What Are the Prospects for Its Practical Applicability? Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
Kotsoglou, K. N. (2021). Zombie forensics: the use of the polygraph and the integrity of the criminal justice system in England and Wales. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 25(1), 16–35.
Peleg, D., Ayal, S., Ariely, D., & Hochman, G. (2019). The Lie Deflator – The effect of polygraph test feedback on subsequent (dis)honesty. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(6), 728-738. doi:10.1017/S1930297500005441
Schindler, S., Wagner, L. K., Reinhard, M., Ruhara, N., Pfattheicher, S., & Nitschke, J. (2020). Are criminals better lie detectors? Investigating offenders’ abilities in the context of deception detection. Applied Cognitive Psychology.
Yu, R., Wu, S. J., Huang, A., Gold, N., Huang, H., Fu, G., & Lee, K. (2019). Using Polygraph to Detect Passengers Carrying Illegal Items. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(322).
write