On the Fallibility of Lie Detection
![handle is hein.journals/lwsocrw17 and id is 87 raw text is: ON THE FALLIBILITY OF LIE DETECTION
BENJAMIN KLEINMUNTZ
JULIAN J. SZUCKO
The polygraph's widespread use in the legal setting and elsewhere
should be of concern to society, but especially to psychologists and
lawyers. Since lying does not produce a measurable physiological
response-and hence renders lie detection meaningless-the
plausibility of the theory of so-called lie detection tests is questioned.
Empirical evidence is presented that disputes the accuracy of testing
and shows the high rate of false positive misclassification (e.g.,
misclassifying a truthful person as deceptive). An alternative
procedure is recommended. This procedure, sometimes called the
Guilty Knowledge Test, has some problems associated with its use and
can be used only when particular information is available. However, it
can be a significantly more accurate detector of guilt than the standard
lie detection test.
The legal system depends upon its ability to judge witness
credibility. Confidence in the accuracy of witness testimony
may influence the police officer's decision to arrest, the
prosecutor's decision to indict, the judge or jury's decision to
convict. It is thus easy to understand why members of the
legal community might wish for a device that would reveal
deception. Such powers are claimed for the polygraph or lie
detector. While the results of lie detector tests are not
routinely accepted as admissible evidence, a number of states
permit their introduction in some circumstances (e.g.,
California, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin).' Moreover, results of lie
detector tests have been held as admissible according to the
trial courts' discretion in several federal circuits (e.g., Sixth,
Seventh).2 The United States Supreme Court has not yet ruled
upon the admissibility of polygraph test results (43 ALR Fed 68
[1979]), but in view of continuing interest in and debate about
the polygraph, the Court may eventually accept a case dealing
with the topic. Indeed, while there was little openness to the
1 California: People v. Houser (1948); People v. Reeder (1976). Indiana:
Willis v. State (1978); White v. State (1978). Ohio: State v. Souel (1978).
Wisconsin: State v. Stanislawski (1974). (Other states include Iowa, North
Dakota, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, and New Jersey.)
2 Sixth Circuit: United States v. Ridling (1972). Seventh Circuit: United
States v. Penick (1974).
LAW & SOCIETY REVIEW, Volume 17, Number 1 (1982)](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/lwsocrw17&div=10&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
On the Fallibility of Lie Detection
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most