Are lie detectors really accurate?

user-pic
Vote 0 Votes

Polygraph simpson.jpgPolygraphs, or lie detectors, are frequent shown on TV as an accurate way of detecting lies. So what's the truth? According to the research polygraphs have a high false positive rate, meaning that the test isn't measuring a person's lie rather the anxiety of potentially being convicted of a crime that they may or may not have committed. Polygraph test also have a high rate of being able to "fool" through simple techniques that are designed to throw off the baseline readings. Those with emotional disturbances, whom don't feel a strong sense of guilt, are also quite easily able fool the polygraph and "pass the test". Other methods such as Guilt Knowledge Test and fMRI imaging, which have proven to produce less false positives than polygraphs are only effective if the person that committed the crime remembers minute details of the crime scene. So this leads to an interesting question. Do lie detectors continue to be effective in modern day because people are not aware of how inaccurate they really are? In fact due to these significant flaws in the tests, lie detector tests are only admissible in court on a state-by-state basis. Though many states are in the process of changing the admissibility in courts. As a result there are many appeals that are trying to get the polygraph evidence thrown out.

Click here for more information on polygraphs: American Polygraph Association

5 Comments

| Leave a comment

This is interesting. I've also heard that people can fool the machine by taking a short training. As the article says, the machine measure the level of anxiety and there can be many things that cause anxiety. For example, in closed, small room, convicted people may feel very pressured and become anxious because they may not be unfamiliar with that kind of interrogation atmosphere.

There is also a lot more evidence in court that doesn't provide truthful information, such as, witness identification. Even though a witness could see the person their memory may not be as fresh days later. Also sometimes witnesses can be pushed into choosing someone and then convince them selves that that is the convict. The only thing that I think has the ability to be used as hard evidence in court is scientific/dna testing, but this isn't always usable or helpful. So we are stuck with the possibly right options.

I think this subject is extremely interesting because as you stated you do see lie detectors throughout t.v., movies, and in the courtroom. I especially find it interesting that a whole t.v. show, The Maurey Show, is based on lie detector tests when there is so much evidence that shows it can be false many times.

I think you pose an interesting question about whether it is people's belief in the lie detector that makes the difference. Be sure to briefly tell us what the fMRI research and "Guilty Knowledge Test" are.

This is interesting blog. As I watch many TV programs, I was really curious about how accruate the polygraph is. Even though I am not a person who always tells a lie, I am confident of controlling my emotions. If I ever have a chance to go through lie dectecting experiment, I wish to check how well I can control my emotion rather than how accurate the polygraph is.

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by masu0038 published on April 1, 2012 7:31 PM.

The Apple Doesn't Fall Far From the Tree was the previous entry in this blog.

The Polygraph Test: Convicting Innocent People Since 1915 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.