In the areas of sex crimes and domestic violence between 75% and 80% of the people who take a polygraph examination will fail the exam or achieve inconclusive results. There are clear reasons that this happens.

To begin with the vast majority of polygraph examiners are poorly trained, and that statement is being charitable. Secondly the vast majority of polygraph examiners come from the law enforcement mindset to coerce a confession from the person rather than finding the truth. Thirdly most polygraph examiners are using equipment that is as outdated as a Model “T” Ford! While the “Flivver” is cute and probably a collector’s item, one would hardly try to drive one on today’s freeways on a daily basis. Other drivers would get very angry at your 45 MPH top speed. Today’s polygraphs are computerized and have moved away from pure subjective interpretation using questionable bases for interpreting the results.

Perhaps one of the biggest flaws in the use of the polygraph has been the propensity of lawyers (and some “consultant wannabes”) to merely “send” the person for an examination and hope for the best. They seem not to realize the gaping flaws in such a procedure. Doing that fails to take into account the anxiety level of the person and the risk you are taking. Even if the person passes, what they typically have is a piece of inadmissible junk. Few lawyers know how to present the polygraph as a stand alone test, or even with full psychological testing as part of a multimodal testing regimen. So the effectiveness of a program pioneered by the A-Team becomes either useless and a waste of money, or even worse, a disaster. For all this expensive testing to have value it should be presented by a consultant familiar and trained with this gear himself with the person’s lawyer in a structured setting. Testing for testing’s sake is a waste of money.

Many problems with the polygraph have to do with the situation presenting itself and the angst that naturally surrounds it. Often it comes from improperly phrased questions by poorly trained and insensitive examiners. Another pitfall is that often even after passing the polygraph you may find that law enforcement and other legal system entities refuse to accept the results. That often stems again from improperly worded relevant questions, and from antiquated procedures. The process demands that a client be subjected to a polygraph only under conditions that maximize the client’s fair examination. This means never subjecting a client to a law enforcement polygraph without first obtaining a solidly reliable private polygraph, which includes proper prep and being accompanied. Then aggressively presenting the polygraph results along with appropriate psychological test results to the official agencies. Some law enforcement agencies have policies (rarely, but sometimes written) that require their examiners to call ALL results a “fail” even though the individual may have passed the results. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is “NOT” a violation of your rights for police officers to “LIE” to you, and tell you that you failed a polygraph when, in fact, you did NOT! Most frequently, law enforcement polygraph examinations are used NOT as a toll to get at the truth, but as a psychological weapon to extort a confession from you, or some statement they can misconstrue as a confession. Remember that it is their job to “SOLVE” crimes, NOT to behave as your defense counsel or protector of your Constitutional rights.

The polygraph CAN be a powerful tool, but NEVER standing alone! By itself the polygraph will be discounted and ignored; this is most true in sex cases and domestic violence cases. There is a great deal of mythology about the polygraph. Much coming from hysterical activists on these issue who claim that it isn’t reliable because men can “fool” the device and show they are telling the truth when, in fact, they are guilty. This is absurd! A well-trained polygraph examiner is not fooled this way, much less an examiner using the modern generation of polygraphs. The entire field of polygraph examinations has changed dramatically just since 1998. To answer the often “silly” questions of social workers, and often-preposterous beliefs they seem to have, we have the client also evaluated psychologically by specialists in the subject area of the allegation. It is important that mutually supportive testing and experts be utilized in building toward a complete picture. Not taking things as individual fragments. We try to tell a story to the people in the “system” first in the effort to avert a trial and for a Judge or jury next. It is important to take a systems approach to presentations of factual evidence such as this.

The polygraph certainly is not foolproof. Even with prep and getting 85% of the folks to pass convincingly that is still NOT 100%. So, many precautions in using the test should be taken to protect the client. The polygraph will show some individuals as deceptive who are telling the truth. Often this has more to do with physiology or psychological attributes of the person rather than deliberate deceit. For some people the polygraph is NOT a test of choice. In those cases a few alternatives exist. The next choice, albeit expensive is to do a psychiatric exam with sodium amytal and utilizing the pulse-oxymeter to document the reliability of denial of guilt. When we do this we videotape the session for display to law enforcement. Again there are medical limitations on the use of this test procedure. For example cardiac patients and those with drug allergies are not candidates for this procedure. There is also Voice Stress Analysis. We have no fondness for this test, however, many law enforcement agencies swear by the test. The FBI on the other hand, after considerable research, rejected the use of Voice Stress tests as unreliable, in fact less accurate than tossing a coin.

The polygraph is a useful test and is becoming admissible in many states as of this writing. The Daubert decision as well as a recent Air Force case is opening the door to the accepted use of the Polygraph as evidence. Testing with the polygraph is also improving with the advent of computerized systems and evaluations. Technology is improving the reliability of the procedure. We have been using the polygraph effectively for over 20 years, but with the changes including computerized technology and software driven systems for interpretation of results, the polygraph is gaining more acceptance.

It is possible to fake results on the polygraph. However, this is true only in cases with poorly trained operators. Only a sociopath (or psychopath) is going to have enough control to successfully fake a polygraph and show being truthful when in fact they are lying. Which is why a good comprehensive psychological evaluation is needed to run seamlessly with the polygraph to show that the client is also not a sociopath. Mutually reinforcing independent testing is necessary in such cases.

It is also important that these tests be done as soon as possible at the inception of an allegation. Police and abuse investigators etc are much more willing to listen when you are up front with evidence to show your innocence than they are with cute lawyer games of enforcing every civil right. I have been struck by the comments of Mark Klass, Polly Klass’ father about this subject. He and John Walsh of “America’s Most Wanted” both parents of abducted and murdered children have often offered advice to cooperate with police. This is wise advice, if you want to have law enforcement view you as innocent, then show them that you are. Innocent people do everything they can to show that they are innocent. Not just talk. That’s why doing this testing early is so important. After a while the effectiveness diminishes. Not that it’s too late. Just that it will be most effective if done right away.

One of the most dangerous problems you will face is being in the hands of people who merely “think” they know all about this. The Johnny come lately “consultants” who feel they are experts because they have had some vanity press books published. They send you off to “their” examiners (sometimes misusing the same people we do) unaccompanied and unprepared for what you will face. You may, like many people, get lucky with the tests. That isn’t the most important part of the process. What is more important is what you do with the information once you have it. The issue is HOW it will be used, and who can explain the results to your best advantage. I am well aware of the criticism of the cost for the way we do things. There are many ways to save money, and along with those money saving schemes comes a very high risk that the thousands of dollars you spend to be tested will be wasted and it backfire on you.

I could explain that neither the polygraph examiners nor the psychologists are lawyers. Most would not be aware how small problems in their testing may cause you serious legal difficulties instead of achieving the results you are paying for. The A-Team is often imitated but never duplicated.