Talk:Polygraph

TV episodes
A lot of space in this article - most of the section “Society and culture” - was taken up by recounting TV shows in which a polygraph is used to supposedly solve a case or reveal the truth. IMO this coverage was way excessive and added little or no relevant information to the article - and most of it was unsourced to boot. I have provided sources for a few of the more directly relevant items. The others were detailed retellings of a particular episode of a TV show in which a polygraph is featured, either to reveal the truth or to fool the machine. None of them was referenced and I have deleted them all. Anyone object? If so, please explain why you think they are significant and provide references. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Effective
I don't know what you mean by "are 98% effective". Effectiveness is neither reliability nor validity, so I don't know what you mean. I cannot make heads or tails of it. How do you define effectiveness? How do you measure it? What are WP:RS for it? What you wrote is grammatically correct, but it does not have meaning. In plaintext: tell us where did you read that polygraph examinations are 98% effective. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Uncited material in need of citations
I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It is true what you say, but it needs a source. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Service: That refers to this reinsertion of one of the paragraphs below. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Israel
In private discipline, some insurance companies attempt to include a clause in insurance contracts, in which the beneficiary agrees that polygraph results be admissible as evidence. In such cases, where the beneficiary has willingly agreed to such a clause, signed the contract, and taken the test, the courts will honor the contract, and take the polygraph results into consideration. However, it is common practice for lawyers to advise people who signed such contracts to refuse to take the test. Depending on whether or not the beneficiary signed an agreements clause, and whether the test was already taken or not, such a refusal usually has no ill effects; at worst, the court will simply order the person to take the test as agreed. At best, the court will cancel the clause and release the person from taking the test, or rule the evidence inadmissible.

Australia
The High Court of Australia has not yet considered the admissibility of polygraph evidence. However, the New South Wales District Court rejected the use of the device in a criminal trial. In Raymond George Murray 1982 7A Crim R48, Sinclair DCJ refused to admit polygraph evidence tending to support the defense. The judge rejected the evidence on the following grounds: The Court cited, with approval, the Canadian case of Phillion v R 1978 1SCR 18.
 * 1) The veracity of the accused and the weight to be given to his evidence, and other witnesses called in the trial, was a matter for the jury.
 * 2) The polygraph "expert" sought to express an opinion as to ultimate facts at issue, which is peculiarly the province of the jury.
 * 3) The test purported to be expert evidence by the witness who was not qualified as an expert; he was merely an operator and assessor of a polygraph. The scientific premise upon which his assessment was based had not been proved in any court in Australia.
 * 4) Devoid of any proved or accepted scientific basis, the evidence of the operator is hearsay which is inadmissible.

Security clearances
A security clearance in the United States may not be revoked based solely on polygraph results. However, a person's access to sensitive information may be denied if the polygraph results are not favorable. In addition, persons being considered for a government position or job may be denied the employment, if the position specifically requires successful completion of a polygraph examination. It is difficult to precisely determine the effectiveness of polygraph results for the detection or deterrence of spying. It is inadmissible as evidence in most federal courts and military courts martial. The polygraph is more often used as a deterrent to espionage rather than detection.

As part of his plea bargain agreement for his case of espionage for the Soviet Union, Robert Hanssen would be made to undergo a polygraph at any time as a means of damage assessment. In Hanssen's 25-year career with the FBI, not once was he made to undergo a polygraph. Hanssen later admitted that had he been subject to a polygraph or received news of such during his tenure with the FBI, it would have discouraged him from espionage.

The Senate committee reported that the second examination, at a time when Ames was under suspicion, resulted in indications of deception and a retest a few days later with a different examiner. The second examiner concluded that there were no further indications of deception. In the CIA's analysis of the second exam, they were critical of their failure to convey to the second examiner the existing suspicions.

Alternative tests
Recalling artificial memories are known to activate the posterior cingulate cortex. However, fMRIs are limited by being expensive, immobile, and having inconsistent lying responses.

Notable cases
[Gary Ridgway] In the interim he had killed seven additional women.

[David Westerfield] He was ultimately tried and convicted of kidnapping and first degree murder.

"Junk science"?
Even though a few sources are cited, should it really be referred to as "junk science"? This doesn't sound very neutral. 2601:49:8400:26B:F89F:F8CE:B532:A6BB (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Neutral" does not mean "some say this, some say that" on Wikipedia. It means "follow where the sources go". See WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)