I figured the people here are fans of true crime where polygraph tests on suspects/persons of interests have been used. I was just curious to hear your views on them; if you believe they are reliable or not?

I forget what show it was, but I watched one of those docu. shows on ID about a serial killer on the loose. They polygraphed one suspect and he passed it so he was initially cleared. That was until physical evidence pointed in his direction.

I believe it was on Gary Ridgway aka The Green River killer.



So, guilty people have been able to pass polygraphs.

Unreliable. I'm pretty sure there are more cases where guilty people beat a polygraph test.

I mentioned in a previous thread that when I was a teenager I was a suspect in a crime. I took 3 polygraph tests at different times. In each I told the absolute 100% truth to the best of my ability. I failed 2 out of those 3.

Well... they said fail but in reality it was "signs of deception".

Being 16 I was a nervous wreak and physical signs of nervousness are exactly what they are looking for. I don't believe that sweaty palms and a change in breathing and pulse equate to dishonesty. This is especially true if you are indeed innocent and are told that if you fail the test the next steps in prosecution would be taken.

That said, I was only told that I failed them. I figured this was just their way of trying to get me to confess but they stuck with their results.

So no... I don't put much stock in them. I think it is just as likely for a cool and collected sociopath to appear "honest" and for an innocent stressed person to appear "deceptive".

I've always been kind of indifferent to the results of polygraphs, just because there are so many variables that must be taken into factor and they are not standardized across the board in use(i.e. who is giving you the polygraph test) and there are definite ways to (at least attempt to) beat the poly, along with draw false-positives and then there's the spectre of the psyco/sociopath, who could beat the test because their internal wiring may disallow feelings of guilt or wrongdoing and can use their guile and manipulation to fool the test....

All that said, from all the classes I've taken during my crim BA(I'm getting my MA now), the rule of thumb points more towards looking deeper into individuals who may refuse to take the test, as authorities could take a read on this as a cue to look further, as after all, investigators would inquire "what does an innocent person have to worry about taking a polygraph?".

Endgame, I wouldn't depend on them, but human nature and reactions towards the proposal of a polygraph provide a good read on potential suspects.

My confidence in them have dropped as I've learned more about them. Liars have passed them and innocent people have appeared to show deception.

I'm not saying they're totally useless, but they're inadmissible in court for a reason.

I'm totally against it. There are many circumstances (depression, stress or anxiety, mental illness, or altered mood due to medication) that can make them go wrong, and if there was the possibility that I could be wrongly put away for life, I would absolutely not entrust my fate to a machine that may have no idea what it's talking about.

All that said, from all the classes I've taken during my crim BA(I'm getting my MA now), the rule of thumb points more towards looking deeper into individuals who may refuse to take the test, as authorities could take a read on this as a cue to look further, as after all, investigators would inquire "what does an innocent person have to worry about taking a polygraph?"

This is generally how I feel about them. I believe the purpose of a polygraph is to gauge people's reactions when asked about taking a polygraph, and then their reactions as to why they failed certain questions on a polygraph. I had watched a 48 Hours episode about a woman who was murdered. She was having an affair with a man, and the man and his wife were both given polygraphs, and both failed. However, the man failed for the question "Are you responsible for her death", and his explanation for failing that question was that he had promised to run off with this woman, but ultimately broke it off to remain with his wife. Law enforcement were satisfied with this answer, and ultimately charged the woman's husband who was convicted.

I've always been kind of indifferent to the results of polygraphs, just because there are so many variables that must be taken into factor and they are not standardized across the board in use(i.e. who is giving you the polygraph test) and there are definite ways to (at least attempt to) beat the poly, along with draw false-positives and then there's the spectre of the psyco/sociopath, who could beat the test because their internal wiring may disallow feelings of guilt or wrongdoing and can use their guile and manipulation to fool the test....

All that said, from all the classes I've taken during my crim BA(I'm getting my MA now), the rule of thumb points more towards looking deeper into individuals who may refuse to take the test, as authorities could take a read on this as a cue to look further, as after all, investigators would inquire "what does an innocent person have to worry about taking a polygraph?".

Endgame, I wouldn't depend on them, but human nature and reactions towards the proposal of a polygraph provide a good read on potential suspects.

I think innocent people should fear taking polygraph tests, because as I basically said in my other post, if I know I'm innocent, I wouldn't want the people who decide my fate to take the word of a machine that is falsely indicating otherwise.

I think innocent people should fear taking polygraph tests, because as I basically said in my other post, if I know I'm innocent, I wouldn't want the people who decide my fate to take the word of a machine that is falsely indicating otherwise.

I 100% understand what you're saying. However, if you're ultimately not guilty and 100% innocent, a failed polygraph alone is not going to decide your fate. It may cause investigators to look your way more thoroughly, but ultimately there would have to be a large amount of exculpatory evidence that would prove your innocence.

In my opinion, polygraph tests are a crock. I wouldn't blame any suspect in any case for refusing to take one (i.e. Christine Mutzfeld). Polygraphs are a waste of time, effort and resources often at taxpayer expense; LEOs are much better off doing typical interrogations because they can cut the BS and get a suspect talking much faster and easier.

When I see polygraphs used on talk shows like Maury, it makes me LMFAO because first of all, the show is completely staged, and secondly polygraphs have been proven time and again to hold no legitimate value when making a case against a suspect.

I feel bad for any innocent person who is offered the chance to do a polygraph test, but declines because their attorney advises them not to. It's certainly wise advice and I would listen to the attorney, but unfortunately, there are still many people who will think that declining to take a polygraph automatically makes someone look guilty. An example from UM would be the Amy Bechtel disappearance, where her husband (whom I think is probably innocent) declined to take a polygraph on the advice of his lawyer, but it sounded like Amy's family, LE and other members of the community took that as an admission of guilt.

I also remember LE getting suspicious because Doyle Wheeler declined to take a polygraph after his attack, but being a former cop, Doyle would probably know better than anybody how unreliable and falsely incriminating polygraphs can be.

I wouldn't take one because I'd be a nervous wreck! I'm a very emotionally expressive and high-strung person to begin with, so I imagine any polygraph I'd take would be wildly up-and-down due to massive anxiety alone.

On the other hand, I have a close relative who is a textbook sociopath (hasn't committed any crimes, thankfully) and he'd be cool as a cucumber and would probably pass with flying colors.

I wouldn't take one because I'd be a nervous wreck!

I saw an episode of The Steve Wilkos Show last week and some guy failed the polygraph but claimed it was because he was nervous and that he had told the truth. Wilkos then told him that nervousness had nothing to do with it which I find hard to believe.

I've always been kind of indifferent to the results of polygraphs, just because there are so many variables that must be taken into factor and they are not standardized across the board in use(i.e. who is giving you the polygraph test) and there are definite ways to (at least attempt to) beat the poly, along with draw false-positives and then there's the spectre of the psyco/sociopath, who could beat the test because their internal wiring may disallow feelings of guilt or wrongdoing and can use their guile and manipulation to fool the test....

All that said, from all the classes I've taken during my crim BA(I'm getting my MA now), the rule of thumb points more towards looking deeper into individuals who may refuse to take the test, as authorities could take a read on this as a cue to look further, as after all, investigators would inquire "what does an innocent person have to worry about taking a polygraph?".

Endgame, I wouldn't depend on them, but human nature and reactions towards the proposal of a polygraph provide a good read on potential suspects.

Does "I may fail the test for reasons other than culpability" not cross LE's minds about why someone would not want to take a polygraph?

This is the investigation version of 'Does this dress make me look fat?' kind of loaded question: Take it, you may show signs of deception or refuse. In either case you are strengthening their suspicions that you are guilty in some way completely independent of any evidence at all.

I feel bad for any innocent person who is offered the chance to do a polygraph test, but declines because their attorney advises them not to. It's certainly wise advice and I would listen to the attorney, but unfortunately, there are still many people who will think that declining to take a polygraph automatically makes someone look guilty. An example from UM would be the Amy Bechtel disappearance, where her husband (whom I think is probably innocent) declined to take a polygraph on the advice of his lawyer, but it sounded like Amy's family, LE and other members of the community took that as an admission of guilt.

I also remember LE getting suspicious because Doyle Wheeler declined to take a polygraph after his attack, but being a former cop, Doyle would probably know better than anybody how unreliable and falsely incriminating polygraphs can be.
True points. I don't like them. I don't understand why the used them to eliminate suspects yet they can't use them to convict a suspect.

During my undergraduate years, I took a sociology class which showed us ways to beat a polygraph. The polygraph can't measure if you're lying-- it measures your body's physical reactions when presented with various questions. If you can establish a high baseline on the "easy" questions they start out with, it can mask the "deception" that could possibly pop up on a "harder" question.

I agree with the earlier posters who have commented that they are nervous people and would be deemed "deceptive" even if telling the complete truth. I put myself in the same category. I don't trust the instrument and put ZERO stock into it when people say "I passed a polygraph."

Polygraphs are inadmissible in court for a reason, that's all I'm saying.

I don't trust them. In my case I never get nervous when it's a mental exercise, like being asked to speak publicly. I've thrived in debates and radio shows and handicapping forums all my life. But stick me on the first tee at an unfamiliar golf course and my system can be all over the place. I can be perfectly relaxed and bust one down the middle, or be life and death to make basic contact. For many years in that situation I carried a driving iron in my bag solely because I knew I could slap it out there more dependably than a driver.

In a polygraph setting I'm not sure which aspect would take over, my mental ease or twitchy nerves. Most likely it would vary, leading to erratic and undependable results.

I don't trust them. In my case I never get nervous when it's a mental exercise, like being asked to speak publicly. I've thrived in debates and radio shows and handicapping forums all my life. But stick me on the first tee at an unfamiliar golf course and my system can be all over the place. I can be perfectly relaxed and bust one down the middle, or be life and death to make basic contact. For many years in that situation I carried a driving iron in my bag solely because I knew I could slap it out there more dependably than a driver.

In a polygraph setting I'm not sure which aspect would take over, my mental ease or twitchy nerves. Most likely it would vary, leading to erratic and undependable results.
Yeah good points. For this reason I struggle to understand why it is seen as a bad thing when people refuse to take them and people automatically think they are guilty.