Polygraph

[tannerthehammer]

I heard a rumour that MPAC is starting to use the Polygraph test....Any truth to this?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I heard a rumour that MPAC is starting to use the Polygraph test....Any truth to this?

Guess you'd need the polygraph to determine that! ;D

 

[Greymatters]

Haha, good one...

 

[Pinto]

I certainly hope this is nothing more than a false rumour, considering that polygraphs don't really work...

The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected the use of polygraph results as evidence in court.

Polygraph tests have failed in the past at capturing (later to be) known spies; Aldrich Ames passed two polygraph tests while spying for the Soviet Union.

No scientific study has been published that offers convincing evidence of the validity of the polygraph test.

Meaningless pseudo-science that looks good in movies but has no real use, IMHO.

Cheers!

 

[Spartan]

Y

I certainly hope this is nothing more than a false rumour, considering that polygraphs don't really work...

The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected the use of polygraph results as evidence in court.

Polygraph tests have failed in the past at capturing (later to be) known spies; Aldrich Ames passed two polygraph tests while spying for the Soviet Union.

No scientific study has been published that offers convincing evidence of the validity of the polygraph test.

Meaningless pseudo-science that looks good in movies but has no real use, IMHO.

Cheers!

Which is why CSIS has been told for years by the oversight committee to get rid of this test for new applicants.
CSIS still continues to use the polygraph, without a good explaination as to why they do.

 

[1feral1]

At the end of the day, the only ones that should worry are the ones that have something to hide.

I know that many municipal police forces, such as the Regina Police use this device during the recruiting process, and I do believe the RCMP still do also (at least in 2004).

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the idea. The fear/threat of this machine keeps the undesirables out of the Police, and thats ok by me. This includes the ones that appear squeaky clean, but do in fact have something to hide.

Sure, it can't be used in court, but it is used in investigations with great success. Many businesses (some Armoured Car companies too) also use them. Ya, some people can fool it, but most, like you and I cannot. Thinking we can, and risking a job (or unearthing a dark secret that some may keep) on it is too big of gamble for most.

So, I am for the idea.


Wes

 

[gate_guard]

Wesley +1

I've taken a polygraph test and I found it quite interesting and could see its usefulness during an interview process. It is not a "lie detector" but it does detect deception. From my experience, when used by an experienced interviewer/interrogator, it can be a very useful interviewing tool. I've viewed footage of polygraph tests and you'd be surprised at what comes out whether it's the polygraph detecting deception, the test taker caving in under the pressure, the interviewer ripping apart the test takers story, or a combination thereof. I've heard one story of a police applicant admitting to certain *ahem* indiscretions with animals...

Is it 100% foolproof? No. Meaningless pseudoscience with no real use? Hardly.  IMO it is a very useful tool in the application process. And like Wes says, if you don't have anything to hide then you have nothing to worry about. If you don't want to take it, don't apply.

 

[Greymatters]

Sure, it can't be used in court, but it is used in investigations with great success. Many businesses (some Armoured Car companies too) also use them. Ya, some people can fool it, but most, like you and I cannot. Thinking we can, and risking a job (or unearthing a dark secret that some may keep) on it is too big of gamble for most.

The machine has in the past been proven to not be effective against serial killers (based on evidence collected by the FBI), or against skilled con artists.  This has led some researchers to believe that it may be that those who lack guilt complexes are able to defeat the process. 

However, as Wesley points out, most people cant fool the machine, it is a great deterrent for law enforcement wannabe's with a shady past, and it weeds out those who fear their crimes will be 'detected'. 

 

[noneck]

Wesley and gate_guard ++++++++1

Definitely has it's place as an investigative tool and that includes pre-employment testing!

Noneck

 

[garb811]

The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected the use of polygraph results as evidence in court.

If you're going to start throwing around Supreme Court rulings regarding something, you should at least have a knowledge as to what the reasoning for the ruling was.  This is a good place to start:  R vs Beland.

From that ruling, the following summarizes the Court's belief, you'll note it isn't, "...polygraphs don't really work..."

The results of a polygraph examination are not admissible as evidence. The polygraph has no place in the judicial process where it is employed as a tool to determine or to test the credibility of witnesses. The admission of such evidence would offend well established rules of evidence, in particular, the rule against oath‑helping, which prohibits a party from presenting evidence solely for the purpose of bolstering a witness' credibility, the rule against the admission of past or out‑of‑court statements by a witness and the character evidence rule. The polygraph evidence is also inadmis‑ sible as expert evidence. The issue of credibility is an issue well within the experience of judges and juries and one in which no expert evidence is required.

If the Court believed that the use of the polygraph was something which would bring the administration of justice into disrepute they would rule that confessions obtained after someone was polygraphed would be automatically excluded as evidence, which they have not done.  Confessions obtained after a polygraph are as admissible as any other confession and subject to the same challenges, see R. v. Oickle.

Legal scholars and case law have also left open the possibility that one day the polygraph may be admissible however, most are loathe to have this happen due the probability that at that point the legal system would turn into "trial by machine" vice "trial by judge and jury."

Polygraph tests have failed in the past at capturing (later to be) known spies; Aldrich Ames passed two polygraph tests while spying for the Soviet Union.

And one study (Evaluation of Pepper Spray) showed that OC spray was only effective against 90% of the targeted individuals, it doesn't mean we don't carry it.

As the others have pointed out, the polygraph is a tool and in the hands of a skilled operator who is a competent interrogator, it is an extremely effective tool which I have used several times to good effect.

The machine...

Pssttt!  Don't say "machine" to a polygrapher, I found out the hard way that it's an instrument.

 

[Greymatters]

The question arises why there appear to be opponents to a system.  What arguments do they base their objections on?  The following link has a good write-up on the subject.  It may be a bit wordy for some.

http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~furedy/Papers/ld/Canlegal.doc

 

[MedCorps]

This is an interesting read, albeit from one point of view. 

http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf

I showed it to a friend who was newly qualified as a polygraph tech.  She said that it is 70% good 30% BS but is worth a read.  Unless you are going to have a test, and then maybe reading it is not a good idea, and it might be seen as "studying to counter the machine". 

Enjoy... I found it interesting as I knew little about the topic. 

MC

 

[Greymatters]

Very interesting in the bit I had time to read, will look forward to the whole thing later, thanks for the good link.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Xerox brand lie detector 


A judge admonished the police in Radnor, Pa., for pretending a 
Xerox copy machine was a lie detector.  Officials had placed a metal
colander on the head of a suspect and attached the colander to the
copier with metal wires. In the copy machine was a typewritten
message: "He's lying."

Each time investigators received answers they didn't like, they pushed
the copy button and out popped the message, "He's lying." Apparently
convinced the machine was accurate, the suspect confessed.

Oh, sorry. I thought the thread was "Polygraph Humour". My mistake. I'll leave now.

 

[Greymatters]

Oh, sorry. I thought the thread was "Polygraph Humour". My mistake. I'll leave now.

Thats a pretty good one!

 

[Cardstonkid]

http://antipolygraph.org/

This is a great link that outlines the dangers of a polygraph reliance.


The CIA and the FBI and many regional Canadian police forces rely on polygraphs. This is a very serious mistake. Sociopaths / psychopath's, and trained evaders will not be caught by this machine, BUT trained interrogation officers have a real chance of success. So IF there is reliance on this faulty technology there is a good chance that bad guys are having a good day.

There is a better chance that innocent people are being denied jobs or being scrutinized unfairly because a nervous person telling the truth will set off a "false" reading, whereas a cool manipulative liar will sail through the test.

The polygraph machine that has a future is the MRI. There is evidence to suggest that by watching the brain process information, the MRI can see a person is creating a story or remembering an event. IF this is verified and passes double blind studies (which I understand  the conventional polygraph has never done) science can actually provide a real lie detector that works. (Unless someone figures out how to spoof that test too.)

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It takes two years to get an MRI for cancer, in this country : I doubt that Canada will be using an MRI for the cops anytime soon. Double blind test or not. JMHO of course.

 

[garb811]

...
The CIA and the FBI and many regional Canadian police forces rely on polygraphs. This is a very serious mistake. Sociopaths / psychopath's, and trained evaders will not be caught by this machine, BUT trained interrogation officers have a real chance of success. So IF there is reliance on this faulty technology there is a good chance that bad guys are having a good day.
...

I don't think anyone is saying we should be "relying" on a polygraph for anything.  Just because someone is being polygraphed as part of an investigation or application process doesn't mean nothing else is done.  It's also already been established that most of us agree it's a tool with potential pitfalls.  Unlike "CSI: Hollywood" many of the tools we use are also imperfect but it doesn't mean they aren't useful in any given situation.

One does not simply wake up one day and decide they are going to be a polygrapher.  In Canada at least, all police polygraphers "...must have at least five years criminal investigation experience, and be a competent investigator with a natural aptitude and a proven ability to conduct criminal investigative interviews."  In addition to the polygraph specific topics, interrogation techniques are covered because the polygraph and subsequent interrogation go hat in hand, it's useless to have a polygrapher who isn't a skilled interrogator.  The best interrogator I've ever known was a polygrapher and many of his skills were gained via the course.

This is another of those issues where it is possible to find a ton of "evidence" on the internet to support whatever view it is you have, some of it legit and some of it tin-hattish.

 

[Cardstonkid]

There is no doubt that the internet is not a credible source of information. A link to it does not preclude a person doing their own homework and checking their sources. That being said when some of the world's best known skeptics and authorities on the subject of flim flammery are of the opinion that the polygraph machine is bunkum (James Randi, Skeptics Society) then it is worth considering that the machine is questionable.

I understand that in the FBI and CIA's worst cases of betrayal andespionage the polygraph passed traitorous members of these agencies with flying colors.

Consider this. IF it is possible to reliably spoof a polygraph then why use it at all? It is well established that the machine cannot detect a trained liar and or a natural liar. (sociopath) Since a polygraph operator cannot know who is lying it is not a reliable device even if it catches some people, because ultimately one can never know if the guilty are in fact guilty or if the innocent are innocent.

Our safety is too important to rely on equipment is provably unreliable.

 

[Rowshambow]

I think the poly is a good deterent, but at the same time, I think alot of forces (Police) put too much weight in its merit. Look at all the problems Edmonton Pilice is having, there are officers in the news daily doing something, so the poly hasn't really restricted the "bad seeds" that it can get, if anything I think it sends some applicants to Ontario, where most forces don't use it. Why would they want to jump through that hoop when they could apply to a force without it?

so back to the original question, are the MP's thinking about using it?