Topic: Would you take a lie detector test? (Read 2022 times)

Dolly · « **on:** February 12, 2008, 03:17:55 PM »

Hi All, It's my understanding that lie detectors are only about 70% accurate, so I'm wondering what would be considered the best strategy when asked to take one? It seems a no win situation if you're not guilty, since most people don't seem to realize how inaccurate they are. If you say no, you look like you're hiding something, and if you fail then they assume you must be guilty. I know the results aren't admissible in court, but the results always seem to reach the public, especially in high profile cases, and of course the police will hammer away that you failed, even though they know the results can be skewed. Would someone who knows how inaccurate they are, like a police officer, likely refuse a test, or is it more in a persons best interest to take it if not guilty?
Take Care, Dolly

Charmaine · « **Reply #1 on:** February 12, 2008, 04:57:42 PM »

I think that's a rally good question, but I sure don't have an answer. I suspect the police use it as a kind of psychological tool to see how one reacts, because I'm sure they learn in Police Academy that the reason the results are not court-acceptable is that lie detectors can be fooled, misread, etc.

Heaven forbid I'd ever have to be in that situation, but I'd be strongly inclined to insist on having competent counsel to advise me first. And if it was felt best that the test be taken, I would want my lawyer present as well as another expert on the kind of machine being used present.

JIM DOHERTY · « **Reply #2 on:** February 12, 2008, 09:35:53 PM »

Dolly,

I've had to take lie detector tests as part of the pre-screening at some of the police departments I've applied to. I took them because I didn't have any choice if I was going to be considered for hiring, but I've never liked it. I think the accuracy or inaccuracy depends on the operator, which means it's as much art as science.

BTW, when you say "lie-detector," I assume you mean polygraph machine. Another type of lie detector is the Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE).

While the polygraph, which has been around longer, measures heart rate, sweat, body movement, respiration, etc., the PSE only measures voice vibrations. Some say it's more accurate. Others say it's much less accurate because it only measures one physical indicator of deception instead of at least three. I don't know one way or the other.

Soon after the PSE was invented, a PI novel by Franklin Bandy called Deceit and Deadly Lies, about a private eye who specialized in giving PSE tests, appeared and won an Edgar.

Dolly · « **Reply #3 on:** February 13, 2008, 03:24:53 AM »

That's interesting the police would use a polygraph that way, considering that they, of all people, should know what an inaccurate crap shoot it is. I'd forgotten about that voice test. The National Enquirer use to regularly print articles where they analyzed someone's voice and proclaimed them as lying. hmmmm maybe I shouldn't admit to reading that thing

.
Thanks for the info.
Dolly

I have requested this comment be deleted. · « **Reply #4 on:** February 13, 2008, 04:43:38 PM »

The examiners believe they work, for the same reasons phony psychics believe they have real psychic powers. Investigators--it seems to me anyway--are a real superstitious bunch. They seem ultra-rational on the surface, but underneath that is a whole world of hunches and gut feelings and rituals. The polygraph examiner is like their shaman.

If we were still doing witch hunts, I imagine anyone applying to be a witch hunter would have to submerge himself in water to prove that he is not a witch.

linda · « **Reply #5 on:** February 14, 2008, 01:26:23 PM »

As an officer, I have never believed in the accuracy of lie detector tests. That said, as a detective I regularly sent my better suspects in for the test. But only to one specific operator.

Number 1 - a large majority of the public believes that these tests work. And, if you believe in them, you're more likely to show the stress symptoms that indicate deception.

Number 2 - the operator I used was one of the best interrogator/interviewers I had ever seen. I would send someone in for the test and return to watch through the two-way mirror when this man was ready to do the final interview. His techniques were amazing and I ended up with more confessions than any other detective on the squad. But not because of the machine, because of the man.

Would I take a lie detector test? Nope. If you've got the evidence, convict me. Otherwise, don't expect me to help shore up your weak case.

Linda

Dolly · « **Reply #6 on:** February 14, 2008, 04:21:12 PM »

I can see it would have it's uses for the police, accurate or not, but it was my suspicion that it wouldn't be in the suspects best interest, even if not guilty.
I think people are crazy, or excessively greedy, to go on that tv show where they're hooked up to a lie detector and asked questions that can jeopardize their relationships with their families and/or just plain humiliate them. I've never seen the show, but just from the commercials it seems obvious you can tell what the truth is just by the looks on their faces, or reluctance to answer questions like, "Would you cheat on your wife if you knew she wouldn't find out?". Geez, how greedy can you get to subject yourself to that?
Take Care, Dolly