A polygraph is a device which measures and records several physiological variables such as blood pressure, heart rate, respiration and skin conductivity while a series of questions are being asked, such as, “are the lights on in this room?” in an attempt to detect lies. Thus, measured anxiety is equated with telling untruths. While polygraph tests are commonly used in police investigations in the US, no defendant or witness can be forced to undergo the test. Nevertheless, it is used extensively by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and law enforcement agencies who believe in its utility. The question today – should results of lie detectors be admissible evidence in court?
THROW IT OUT!
There are a myriad of reasons to banish evidence gained from lie detectors in criminal prosecutions. The first falls under an extension of the Fifth Amendment – if one actually believes that such tests are accurate, wouldn’t administering them be a violation of the Fifth Amendment? After all, citizens have a right to their own internal thoughts and feelings. The lie detector (if accurate) would make null and void the right not to self-incriminate.
However, one might also argue that lie detector results are not merely possibly unconstitutional, they are misleading. There is little scientific evidence to back up the claim that results are accurate. Some claim the tests to have 70 to 90 percent accuracy, one might say that the method is entirely subjective and will have different results on different people. I, for example, am a very nervous person. I dislike being questioned. I would fail a lie detector test under any imaginable circumstance that didn’t involve fluffy kittens—unlike ice cold superspy Aldrich Ames, who passed two polygraph tests while spying for the Soviet Union. In addition, no scientific evidence has been published that offers persuasive proof for the accuracy of tests.
Thus, I would argue that first, the consequences of “failing” the polygraph are too harsh, and secondly, that, given their low rate of accuracy, they are unnecessarily condemning in the courtroom (especially if you consider that bickering over the accuracy of a test is likely to confuse jurors who are just trying to stay awake). While one could argue more evidence is good evidence, I would say, well, not if it’s inherently misleading. You wouldn’t start quoting Hilary Duff in an article about classical trumpet, and you shouldn’t let evidence that is highly inaccurate and subjective into a court that promises everyone an equal shot at justice.
IT WORKED FOR BEN STILLER, IT CAN WORK FOR US
There’s a difference between letting evidence into court and having it be the glove that didn’t fit. In a justice system that lets fifth grade teachers testify to the character of their grown pupils, I say its only fair to allow a simply physical test into the courtroom. Techniques are becoming more and more advanced, and it’s misleading to believe that accuracy is or always will be impossible. In Europe, for example, involved parties can order a psychologist to write an opinion based on polygraph results. After all, in highly emotional issues, isn’t it reasonable to think that there will in the vast majority of cases, be some noticeable results in a test that essentially monitors feelings? After all, sexual offenders are routinely polygraphed. It is, after all, much easier to school one’s face than to control one’s emotions. Emotions can be good evidence that the justice system has the responsibility to consider.
Unfair? A violation of the Fifth Amendment? What if defendants agree? What if they call for the test themselves? Why should we automatically say that their subjective reactions are irrelevant? Sure, they ought be subject to analysis – but defendants will be subject to scrutiny by the jury of their emotional reactions in any case. Imagine a defendant being asked a provocative question – his or her eye twitches! – and juror number two sees that as a sign of guilt. If it’s going to happen anyways, what are the grounds for throwing out one particular type of emotional reaction? Particularly if one believes that a more robust set of evidence can only leads to a more informed decision!
Leave a Reply