Polygraph Tests: Admissibility, Accuracy, and Legal Implications
Introduction
Polygraph tests’ admissibility as credible evidence represents a double-edged sword. On the one hand, polygraphs can accurately detect changes in the subject’s state. On the other hand, the tools are unable to provide a credible justification for those changes. The latter notion is the main reason why a similar test was rejected in the 1923 case of Frye v. U.S. It became a rule of thumb for almost a century, causing general wariness, if not full rejection, by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Mechanism of the Polygraph Lie Detection Test
In order to ascertain whether or not a subject is lying, a polygraph lie detection test employs an instrument that records a variety of electrical and physiological signs. While an individual provides responses to a series of specified inquiries, non-lethal electric nodes are affixed to the skin. This way, the instrument detects specific physiological changes, such as an increase in blood pressure or heart rate, increased sweating, and other subconscious changes that can be a sign that an individual is lying (Mallow, 2020).
A needle captures any physical alterations as the subject responds to the questions. The specialists will study the report the participants recorded once the session is over to draw specific conclusions. It is assumed that when a person answers a question with deception, their body will display specific physiological reactions that cannot be hidden by words alone.
Such tests were previously often given to suspects or witnesses to facilitate police investigation and aid in criminal prosecution. Lawyers and government officials also employed them to question crime suspects (Mallow, 2020). Eventually, businesses started using polygraph exams to evaluate if a job candidate or employee was telling the truth.
Test Limitations
Nevertheless, the accuracy and dependability of such examinations’ findings have been frequently questioned (Mallow, 2020). Furthermore, leading experts generally warn against utilizing them for any purpose. This is because physiological signs of deliberate deception are commonly confused with signs of uneasiness, excitement, worry, and other negative emotions. Feelings of exhilaration or trepidation do not always mean an individual is guilty. It indicates that, given the circumstances of their lives, they can experience stress or external psychological pressure.
Ethical and Legal Considerations
Workplace Regulations
One last crucial point to remember regarding polygraph exams is that people cannot be coerced into taking one against their will (Mallow, 2020). A person can only be subjected to a polygraph exam with prior notification and agreement. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA), a federal polygraph statute approved by Congress in 1988, is among the main reasons polygraphs are so limited in their use (Mallow, 2020). Most private companies are prohibited from utilizing these tests on either job candidates or current workers under the EPPA. According to the Act, employers may not discipline, terminate, or treat an employee differently because they refuse to take a test.
Law Enforcement Regulations
When it comes to law enforcement, the same rule is applicable. Thus, individuals are encouraged to contact a criminal defense lawyer immediately for additional legal advice if they are having problems with undergoing a polygraph test or with their examination findings (Mallow, 2020). Due to state-to-state variations in polygraph court admissibility, a polygraph examination should first be viewed with regard to a particular jurisdiction.
Differences in State Legislation
In this context, the states may be broadly categorized into two groups: those that deem the test findings wholly inadmissible and those that permit them in court only if they are provided with both parties’ consent. That is, the latter group necessitates that both the defendant and the prosecution consent to the evidence’s admission. Currently, 23 states still allow polygraph exams to be used as evidence in court, belonging to the second previously mentioned group (Mallow, 2020).
Additionally, the polygraph examination is typically employed in civil court cases rather than criminal ones, such as when a person cannot obtain a job or security authorization. For instance, in Georgia, a defendant who suffered harm due to a fraudulent polygraph examination outcome may file a lawsuit against the company administering the examination for damages and legal costs (Mallow, 2020). Therefore, if a person in Georgia missed out on a job opportunity due to a test administrator misreading the findings, the person can sue the company for compensation.
However, even when both parties provide their permission, some states consider polygraph exams to be wholly inadmissible. The further reason why state-to-state division on this topic exists today is the absence of consistent rules, aside from the EPPA, that apply to polygraph examinations (Mallow, 2020). Instead, state legislation and judicial discretion are being employed in such cases. For instance, in the landmark decision of Frye v. U.S. in 1923, the notion of polygraph exams used in court proceedings as trustworthy evidence was first rejected (U.S. Supreme Court, 2023). In short, it implied that with sufficient psychological and physiological recognition, examinations similar to polygraph tests should not be admitted as evidence (U.S. Supreme Court, 2023). Consequently, this case became the precedent for criminal law practice until the late 20th century, when new rulings came into force, and polygraphs became relatively recognized in the scientific field.
Conclusion
Overall, the situation surrounding polygraph examinations could be clearer. Due to the inability to fully explain the changes in the subject’s physiological state, courts across the U.S. cannot consistently rely on this approach. Even if they do, the decision has to be transferred to the case parties. Moreover, it should not be utilized in criminal cases since the decisions in such circumstances have to rely on more justifiable evidence due to their importance for societal well-being.
References
Mallow, M. S. (2020). The admissibility of polygraph test as evidence. In Proceedings of SOCIOINT 2020 – 7th International Conference on Education and Education of Social Sciences (pp. 305-310). SOCIOINT.
U.S. Supreme Court. (2023). Frye v State. Justia. Web.