Project section 3:

polygraph examinations

By: Elayna Paro

Last Updated 12/10/23

Famous actress, Jennifer Lawrence, taking a polygraph examination, via Vanity Fair.

Well-known celebrities are oftentimes seen taking polygraph tests. Famously seen on Vanity Fair, celebrities such as Jennifer Lawrence, Channing Tatum, and Kevin Hart have taken polygraph tests, with questions about their career and personal lives.

But, are these tests reliable?

Polygraph tests rely on heart rate and respiration rates to detect if the participate is telling the truth. It is common knowledge that people react differently when lying: some people who are lying can go undetected, while others who are telling the truth can fail the test. Varying results can occur based on the accuracy of the machine, the administer, and the person taking the test. Polygraph tests are deemed unreliable for these reasons, and therefore are not admissible in the courtroom.

In the world of true crime, lie-detector tests are still used to determine if a suspect is lying. Although these results are not admissible in court, law enforcement agencies still use these results for psychological reasons, whether that be rattling the suspect to come clean, or giving the investigators false hope about the truth of the investigation.

"KGB spy Aldrich H. Ames, who was found culpable in the deaths of 48 CIA agents, passed two CIA lie detectors with no issues. He later explained, “There’s no special magic.” “Confidence and a friendly relationship with the examiner…”"

These results are not the determining factor of a case, and do not hold as much weight in the courtroom as hard evidence, such as DNA or blood spatter.

Google Images: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gary-ridgway-green-river-serial-killer-washington-rcna67794.

The Green River Killer

Gary Leon Ridgeway, or better known as The Green River Killer was administered a polygraph examination on May 7th of 1984. He was a suspect in the finding of women's bodies who were dumped into the Green River. He passed the polygraph examination and was released as a suspect. In 2003, he was convicted of the murders of 48 women on means of DNA evidence, 42 in which were already committed at the time of his prior arrest.

Source and Image: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/juan-rivera-and-the-dangers-of-coercive-interrogation.

Juan Rivera

Juan Rivera was sentenced to life in prison in 1993, on accounts of rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl, Holly Stalker. No physical evidence linked Rivera to the crime, but he was administered a polygraph test, in which results "proved" him to be guilty.

Juan was exonerated upon DNA evidence after spending 20 years in prison.

Source and Image: https://www.chicagomag.com/chicago-magazine/july-2006/the-nightmare/.

Kevin Fox

Kevin Fox was arrested for charges of the June 2004 sexual assault and murder of his 3 year-old daughter, Riley. He was administered polygraph examinations, upon which he failed and was charged.

Kevin was released from jail after 8 months upon findings of DNA evidence.

So, are lie-detector tests admissible in the courtroom?

Polygraph tests are still admissible in 23 out of the 50 states, but in most states, this requires approval of both the defense and prosecution. With this being said, from law enforcements’ standards, it is extremely important that polygraph tests are administered in a controlled environment to avoid as much error and distraction as possible.

There has been discussion about ways to make polygraph tests more reliable, such as temperature, and skin conductance. But as of now, the tests are still deemed unreliable. Employers can still use polygraph tests to determine a potential hire’s honesty and trustworthiness. This deters applicants from applying if they have something to hide, but it is unusual, and most jobs do not require it under the Employee Polygraph Protection Act. There are still exceptions to this act, such as positions in the pharmaceutical industry. Is this process ethical? Should an applicant have to submit to a polygraph test to receive a job? The answer is probably no, simply for the reason stated above: lie-detector tests are not reliable.

"Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies."

Google Images: https://www.corrections1.com/corrections-jobs-careers/articles/is-a-polygraph-a-good-tool-for-determining-character-rudFjEkOehd1fA6Z/.

A Typical Polygraph Examination Set-Up

Seems scary, right?

Simply stated, polygraph tests are unreliable and inadmissible, and will continue to be that way unless changes are made. Polygraph tests could be great resources, but until the rate of error is lower, and false convictions are guaranteed to be at a minimum, they will continue to be an unreliable piece of evidence.

Page updated