Slashdot Mirror
Ohio Court Admits Lie Detector Tests As Evidence
An anonymous reader writes "Last month, an Ohio court set a new precedent by allowing polygraph test results to be entered as evidence in a criminal trial. Do lie detectors really belong in the court room? AntiPolygraph.org critiques the polygraph evidence from the this precedential case (Ohio v. Sharma)."
I was thinking about moving to a different State, but hadn't figured out which one. Now I'm down to 49 possibilities.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
...as long as people are still searching for some magical way to get the truth out of somebody. Won't happen short of the next fifty years of neurological research.
There is no replacement for displacement.
antipolygraph.com? Well, anyway, this is quite unfortunate, especially if polygraphs are as unreliable as they have always been...and I haven't seen or heard anything to suggest that they aren't.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Well, if our Precedent can beat a lie detector, then I don't think they should be allowed in courts...
This guy's the limit!
Getting evidence admitted is one thing, but getting a jury to believe it or give it any weight or credibility is something else entirely.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
"Do lie detectors really belong in the court room?"
No. Next question please.
Imho, polygraphs should not be used. The simple reason is that some of the more violent and unpleasant people, psychopaths, show blunted responses in psychophysiological tests compared to your 'regular' violent perpetrator. As psychopaths tend to be the ones we should really keep off the streets then a misinformed jury might take polygraph results as definitive evident the perpetrator (psychopath) had not committed the offense and judge accordingly. Also, with a bit of practice and insight, some people are able to control their responses or give misleading results. There's no definitive objective means determining whether someone is telling the truth or not... next to honest evidence the polygraph is pretty useless. It's a nice idea but anyone who has used these psychophysiological tests will know, for every half decent result you also get a fair bit of noise (excluding, of course, the people ho make and sell polygraph tests).
The most common figure for the accuracy of polygraph tests is 70%. Which sounds reasonable, until you realise that since the situation is binomal -- i.e. the only possible results are "truth" and "lie", so pure chance (e.g. flipping a coin) would give you 50% accuracy; at which point 70% starts to look considerably less impressive.
As I understand it, the most useful (from the police's point of view) way to use of lie detectors is psychological: pretend that they're 100% accurate, get the suspect to say "I didn't do it", bluff and claim that "The Machine Knows You're Lying", and get them to give a confession that way. Of course, such a strategy will fail if the polygraph becomes so widely used that everyone becomes familiar with its limitations.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Any test that can possibly provide false results should never be used (IMHO) when the resulting information could possibly deny a man his freedom.
This is Slashdot! Give me the latest gadget, bug, or OS project! This ain't english class so don't confuse the two!
Professional polygraphers will claim their test works 96% of the time. Those claims are bald-faced lies. Regardless of that we can take a look at what happens if the test really did work 96% of the time.
Some employers have been known to hire polygraphers to identify which employee may have been involved in some inside theft (or similar situation). The employer asks the polygrapher to test 50 employees. The odds that the tests will be correct with all 50 employees is 0.96^50=13%. So there is an 87% chance the test will accuse an innocent person...and that assumes the test is correct 96% of the time. What invariably happens is the polygrapher 'discovers' the culprit after the first few tests, packs up his things, and goes home. He identifies the suspect so quickly because the test is only right 65% of the time. Whether the accuracy is 65% of 96% the test will still point to a suspect even if none of the employees did anything wrong.
the mid evil times there was a much better method of figuring out if someone was lying. Just make them walk 10 paces with red hot glowing iron in the arms, if they where talking the truth god would protect them.
I once interviewed for a job and was told that I would be required to handwrite a statement so it could be analyzed by their "handwriting expert." I promptly got up and left. They looked shocked. Apparently they initially tried polygraphing applicants, but found it to be too expensive. Years later I bumped into the HR person at another job and asked her about the success of the vetting process. She said it didn't work and if anything made things worse.
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. --Denis Diderot
Ok this is somewhat off topic but it has to do about Lie detectors.
A long time ago my brother worked for Electronic Boutique (AKA EB)
One of the employees stole some money from the cash register and it was pinned on my brother and some other guy.
Well funny thing is they both recieved Lie detector tests and failed. As more and more evidence came in they found the other guy guilty and my brother innocent.
But EB was convinced that my brother took it or had some affiliation because of the lie detector. Now they didn't use that as evidence in court however the managers at EB had accepted those results.
Now on a personal note my brother wouldn't take the money. He is an honest hard working citizen and I just couldn't see him doing something like that, so I know it wasn't him.
But basically what I am getting at is the lie detector was not used in court however because of the results my brother lost his job there. They simply did not give him any more hours.
I see that as being unfair, but yeah...just thought I would share.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
Traditional lie detector tests can easily be tricked into whatever answer you want. Functional MRI (fMRI) are the only form of lie detector that should be trusted to be used in a court. At least the probability of defrauding a fMRI lie detector is much lower than traditional lie detector tests.
It doesn't "detect lies"!!! It detects physiological changes ONLY! Determining what those changes actually mean is entirely subjective and open to varied interpretations!
You're using her as bait, Master!
Hey now, don't knock phrenology! I like the thought of being able to alter key characteristics of my being simply by bashing my head against things.
This guy's the limit!
So Ohio is the new Texas?
The Quija board will be allowed to be presented as evidence. After all, it is almost as accurate as the polygraph.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
And as noted - statistics works against the polygraph. There is a reason why it's not used all over the world.
Some medication may also cause an unexpected outcome - either causing the person to be more relaxed or being more tense.
Let's stick to hard evidence. If there is a lack of evidence it's better to wait - at least if the suspect isn't considered a danger to the public.
And of course - there are many things that can be said about the justice system (not only the US) - and it isn't all good.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
how can a court decide that it's admissible? isn't there a law that makes it inadmissible? otherwise , how come there aren't more judges that allow it ?
When Geiger counters are outlawed, only mutants will have Geiger counters
Something similar happens during long police interrogations, the person being interrogated first is subjected to stress (16 hours of interrogation), they are bullied and yelled at, that lowers their confidence level to a point where they cannot discern between their memories of what happened and the version suggested by the police ("you probably don't remember, you are so stressed, you could have easily killed them and then forgotten") and then an apparent easy way out is presented if the person chooses the 'alternative' version of events ("you can go home if you sign this paper and this will all be over..."). I bet at that point if the interrogated person is subjected to a lie detector, they will actually believe that the alternative sequence of events was actually the truth. If someone would ask the question "did you kill" they will say "yes" and because they will believe that to be the truth, the lie detector, no matter how sophisticated will detect no lies.
IMO, a lie detector test amounts to a statement by the defendant. And as such, I feel that it should be strictly under the control of the defendant whether it is admitted in the trial or not. The defendant can invoke their right against self incrimination and refuse to let it be admitted, or they can choose to testify and let it be admitted.
If you read the article, that is precisely what happened here. It would bother me if the court were introducing polygraph evidence over the objection of the defense.
You can't take the sky from me...
In this case it is the DEFENSE offering the lie-detector evidence. Most sexual molestation/battery cases come down to he-said she-said. Lots of innocent people have been convicted under these circumstances. While lie-detectors are not perfect I think in this type of situation they are perhaps appropriate. I would not allow them for prosecution (which is what I think a lot of knee-jerk post here have assumed) and only in cases where the evidence comes down to what is being said by two people, which appears to be what the Judge has decided in this case. While lie-detectors are only about 70% accurate, that is better odds than deciding just on the demeanor of two people in court.
I can sympathize that women are outraged by the high number of men that get off scott-free with these type of charges, but that doesn't alter the fact that it really isn't fair to convict someone on nothing more than an accusation by one person without direct supporting evidence (bruises are not direct evidence). Yes direct evidence is hard to come by in these cases, they are usually executed in private without other witnesses, but I for one would rather see 10 guilty men free than send 1 innocent man to jail.
Letter To Iran
"Lie" detectors only detect an emotional response which is interpreted by the examiner. I have first hand experience taking a polygraph test by some guy that was supposed to be one of the country's leading experts in the field. It returned a false positive. So in my opinion, if a situation every arises where you're asked to take polygraph test, never, never, never take it.
What recourse do we have against a judge for allowing this kind of nonsense into evidence? I imagine this case itself will not carry much weight as precedent, but this is just a symptom of bad thinking -- citizens of Ohio, beware.
On the other hand, from the little about the actual case I saw, the polygraph evidence seems unnecessary. I don't have the court transcript, but from the report it sounded like a "she said / he said" case. It makes me sad to think that a woman's rights may have been violated, but I can't justify the conviction of a person on no other evidence than accusation. A security camera in the hotel hall showing him carrying or coercing her into the room, "date rape drugs" in her blood, even a independent witness's testimony that she seemed dazed or confused. Anything would be helpful. Otherwise, there's no evidence to suggest her story is any more credible than his. That doesn't get you "beyond a shadow of a doubt", no need for a polygraph.
This evidentiary order is not a "precedent". First, it's a mere evidentiary order. Second, the decisions of state district courts are not precedential. They aren't in any way binding on any other court. Third, this is almost certainly error and will almost certainly be reversed on appeal if it isn't harmless error. The federal rules of evidence and the rules of evidence of every state that I know of bars polygraph evidence as unreliable, and has been so held in state appellate courts. THAT is precedential.
What about Basic Instinct? We might as well throw that out the window!
I've failed and then passed a polygraph test. It is a nervousness detector and a useful tool for interrogation. It should not be admitted in court, and I would expect this to be overturned on appeals. Hopefully.
Polygraph, voice stress analysis, fMRI, Tarot cards, have equal diagnostic value. Zero.
To be more precise, no study has yet demonstrated that any is more or less effective than the others.
I guess the next thing will be water boarding, followed closely by the NeoInquisition.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
I was thinking about moving to a different State, but hadn't figured out which one. Now I'm down to 49 possibilities.
:-)
Wouldn't that be 48 possibilities? 48 + Current + Ohio. Or is DC being counted?
Worse, they tend to work worse when the subject is already under stress
My understanding is that they are really stress detectors. The flawed assumption is that stress indicates deception.
"Lie" detectors are very useful tools. First they should really be called stress detectors. Second, knowing what questions are introducing stress can be very useful information to an investigator. No way should it be used against a person in court, but investigators are often called upon to make educated guesses as to whether someone is being truthful or not. Reading non-verbal cues is art not science and it has practical value every day to law enforcement and investigators.
nts.
How many fingerprint experts can be asked to contradict themselves when shown the same prints and told that they are from a different person?
I personally know someone who beat a polygraph test, lying and not getting caught.
And the one time I took one, it was inconclusive on some of the things I was telling the truth about, and it didn't take into account some things that I had forgotten, but remembered after the test.
Granted, there can be a difference in skill using one, but that's just more evidence that they are not black and white as most poeple seem to think.
George W. Maschke, the founder of Antipolygraph, posted a nice statement of why he founded his web site. https://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-003 .shtml
The guy sounds like a real straight arrow, super-patriotic American who worked with a Top Secret clearance for U.S. Army Intelligence and with the FBI on the first World Trade Center bombing, and who was particularly valuable because of his fluency in Arabic and Farsi. After doing exempliary work, he applied for a job as FBI special agent, but was rejected and blacklisted elsewhere because a polygraph examiner falsely decided he was lying and rejected him, and the FBI rejected all his appeals.
That's Maschke version, and I'd like to see any response by the FBI or anything to challenge his credibility. I couldn't find anything.
Back in the 70's I had to pass one for a job I was applying for, I couldn't pass the test questions due to an irregular heartbeat high blood pressure and (at that time) overweight.
If I can illustrate the kinds of test questions that were asked. Do you drink (yes) Bzzt, wrong answer. Are you male (yes) Bzzt, wrong answer. Is it daytime (yes) Bzzt, wrong answer.
Any technology that cannot tell if a fat male drunk is awake in the daytime ain't worth a damn!
No, I didn't get the job.
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
The trial court fucked up by admitting polygraphs as evidence.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
See? I KNEW our Precident was a liar!
Please stop stalking me, bro.
So you would be in the it's better to possibly send an innocent man to jail than to set a dangerous precedent camp?
Instead of arguing lie-detectors are in all cases BAD, how about we acknowledge their weaknesses like any forensic tool and decide how best to use them to improve our justice system. We could also work on improving the science behind them and the protocols for their use.
Letter To Iran
The worst CIA double-agent of all time passed every one of his lie detector tests. They realized he was crooked when they started looking at his assets, large mansion etc...
The value of a lie detector test depends upon the phsycological manipulation BEFORE the test. If you can get through the "setup" without shifting your feelings you can easily pass "the test". You gotta be cool and convince yourself of your own lies; some people are really good at this.
Or perhaps it was illegal. Many states have outlawed polygraphs as a means of employment screening.
I'm shocked.
"Remember, its not a lie if YOU believe it."
Which is to say, less than random 50-50. I don't see a problem.
I believe admitting the polygraph into evidence is wrong.
On the other hand, this looks like a case in which the only evidence is the statement by the alleged victim, and I also think it's wrong to convict people on that as well; you cannot be certain "beyond a reasonable doubt" merely because someone accuses someone else.
I took a polygraph once. The examiner concluded I was lying about something which I was being completely truthful. The fact is, at best what it can indicate is that your are 'uncomfortable' about a topic, whether or not you are telling the truth. How about if the discomfort is a result of a fear that you will be falsely accused of lying about it?
Just take 2 Sudafeds and drink a 32-oz Mountain Dew before your time on the lie detector.
Let the operator try and figure out something from that mess of data.
The site is antipolygraph.org. The .com site is just a placeholder domain with contextual ads.
Thank you for being the one person in this thread to have any common, not to mention legal, sense. You rock. Seriously.
Request: ECM unit, 1000 km fullerene cable, 1 tactical nuclear weapon. Reason: Birthday party for foreign dignitary.
banning evolution from school, spamming plain doublespeak lies in politics, fear of freedom-enabling technologies (the intarweb), a president that is only answerable to god and now taking mumbo-jumbo-sience as evidence into court...every historian worth her salt would be able to read the signs: the next middle age is coming. it's about time, it may be the shorter road to a new renaissance and reconnaissance than actually try to apply to peoples common sense, that never worked.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
Every single time I take them, they ask simple questions, like "What is your name?" or "is the sky blue?" etc, I can give straight up honest answers, and it always come up that I'm lying. I'm not a "flinchy" type, but I can't pass a polygraph for love or money. So, for me, they suck, and I don't think they should be admitted in a court as evidence.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
twm
And I have to say....they are extremly accurate. :))
On the other hand, completly misleading . (They are accurately misleading, if i may say
Some of the questions that you are asked, are stresfull, thus causing clear physcological stress, causing sweat secretion, or excessive heart beats, or the like. You do answer truthfully, but you are thinking about other things while answering..to the examiner, thats a deception.
The lunatic is in my head
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wasn't it in "The Usual Suspect" that someone says the only people capable of quietly sleeping in detention were the true criminals?