5th International Virtual Conference (IVC-2018).  International E-publication: Publish Projects, Dissertation, Theses, Books, Souvenir, Conference Proceeding with ISBN.  International E-Bulletin: Information/News regarding: Academics and Research

Polygraph and its legal fallacies

Author Affiliations

  • 1Department of Forensic Science, BBAU, Lucknow, UP, India

Res. J. Forensic Sci., Volume 6, Issue (5), Pages 5-9, June,29 (2018)

Abstract

Nowadays, there are various techniques like Polygraph, Narco analysis, Brain mapping, Voice change analysis are used for detecting deception. Out of all these, Polygraph is the oldest and the most used technique because of its simplicity, non-invasive nature and ease of combining other PDDs techniques. Polygraphs are of great help in solving crime and their use is increasing day by day in our country. This is also known as lie detector; however, the term is a misnomer. Albeit it's great importance, this test individually is not of great relevance in court but it is preferred over 'third degree methods' because of its easiness to get concealed information. In this paper, the instrumentation of polygraph and different format of conducting test have been reviewed. An attempt has been made to discuss in detail various limitations of this test and the reasons behind questionable acceptance of this test in the scientific and legal community especially in India.

References

  1. Bull,R., Baron H., Gudjonsson G., Hampson S. and Vrij A. (2004)., A review of the current scientific status and fields of application of Polygraphic Deception Detection. Final report (16th October 2004) from BPS working committee., 8.
  2. Maschke G.W. and Scalabrini G.J. (2005)., The Lie Behind the Lie Detector., 4th digital, 87-88. Available on-line at http://antipolygraph.org
  3. Guilo C.D. (2011)., Angelo Mosso - A holistic approach to muscular fatigue., Archives Italliennes de Biolegie, 149, 69-76.
  4. Trovillo P.V. (1939)., History of lie detection., Journal of criminal law and criminology, 29(5), 848-881.
  5. Terry J. Ball (2018)., The polygraph museum., www.lie2me.net/thepolygraphmuseum/ retrieved on 03/01/2018.
  6. Morgan C.T., King R.A., Weisz J.R. and Schopler J. (2001)., Introduction to Psychology., TATA McGraw Hill, International student 7thedition, ISBN 9780074622506.
  7. Grenvik A., Ballou S., McGinley E., Millen J.E., Cooley W.L. and Safar P. (1972)., Impedance pneumography: comparison between chest impedance changes and respiratory volumes in 11 healthy volunteers., Chest, 62(4), 439-443.
  8. Juli Berwald (2018)., Polygraphs., www.faqs.org/espionage/Pa-Po/Polygraphs.html/ retrieved on 08/02/2018.
  9. Kevin Bonsor (2018)., How lie detectors work., www.people.howstuffworks.com/lie-detector1.htm retrieved on 08/02/2018.
  10. Reid J.E. (1947)., A revised questioning technique in lie detection tests., J. Crim. Law Criminol., 37(6), 542-547.
  11. Barland G.H. and Raskin D.C. (1975)., An evaluation of field techniques in detection of deception., Psychophysiology, 12(3), 321-330.
  12. Maschke G.W. and Scalabrini G.J. (2005)., The Lie Behind the Lie Detector., 4th digital ed., 112-114. Available on-line at http://antipolygraph.org
  13. Honts C.R. (1991)., The emperor's new clothes: The application of the polygraph tests in American Workplace., Forensic Reports, 4(2), 91-116.
  14. Maschke G.W. and Scalabrini G.J. (2005)., The Lie Behind the Lie Detector., 4th digital ed., 97-100. Available on-line at http://antipolygraph.org
  15. Ben-Shakhar G. (2002)., A critical review of the Control Questions Test (CQT)., In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing, London, Academic Press, 103-126.
  16. Raskin D.C. and Honts C.R. (2002)., The comparison question test., In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing, London, Academic Press, 1-48.
  17. Bull R., Baron H., Gudjonsson G., Hampson S. and Vrij A. (2004)., A review of the current scientific status and fields of application of Polygraphic Deception Detection., Final report (16th October 2004) from BPS working committee, 11-13.
  18. Slovik S.M. (2013)., Evaluating Previously Conducted Polygraph Examinations., Polygraph, 42(4), 203-208.
  19. Ansley N. (1990)., The validity and reliability of polygraph decisions in real cases., Polygraph, 19, 169-181.
  20. Maschke G.W. and Scalabrini G.J. (2005)., The Lie Behind the Lie Detector., 4th digital ed., 121-163. Available on-line at http://antipolygraph.org
  21. Gudjonsson G.H. (1983)., Lie Detection: Techniques and countermeasures., In S.M.A. Lloyd-Bostock & B.R. Clifford, Evaluating witness evidence, Chichester, Wiley, 137-153.
  22. Goldzband M.G. (1999)., Polygraphy Revisited: U. S. v. Scheffer., J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law, 27(1), 133-142.
  23. Beland R.V. (2018)., Judgements of the Supreme Court of Canada., https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/250/index.do retrieved on 08/03/2018.
  24. Yamamura T. and Miyata Y. (1990)., Development of the polygraph technique in Japan for detection of deception., J. Forensic sci. Int., 44(2-3), 257-271.
  25. Smt. Selvi and others v. (2018)., State of Karnataka 2010(7)., SCC, 263. http://indiankanoon.org/doc/338008/ retrieved on 08/03/2018.
  26. Srivastava U.C. (1996)., Immunity from self-incrimination under article 20(3) of the Constitution of India., J.T.R.I. journal, 4, 1-6.
  27. Maschke G.W. and Scalabrini G.J. (2005)., The Lie Behind the Lie Detector., 4th digital ed., 30-84. Available on-line at http://antipolygraph.org