China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Forensic Assessment
Published in Louis B. Schlesinger, Sexual Murder, 2021
Cesare Lombroso’s (1876/1911) observation of a correlation between deception and changes in pulse and blood pressure laid the basis for the development of the lie detector test. The polygraph is based on the assumption that if a person lies in response to critical questions, an identifiable pattern of changes in respiration, heart rate, blood pressure, and skin resistance can be elicited. Lee (1953) considers the polygraph a useful shortcut that saves time and effort in obtaining a confession from guilty offenders. He cites a number of instances where an offender denied guilt but then confessed after being shown results of a failed polygraph test. According to Lee, “the mere threat of a test accomplished in ten minutes what the sheriff and his deputies were unable to accomplish in 12 days of grilling” (p. 163).
The Radiological Expert
Published in Michael J. Thali M.D., Mark D. Viner, B. G. Brogdon, Brogdon's Forensic Radiology, 2010
For many years, the standard for admitting "scientific" testi-mony as evidence was the so-called "Frye Test" derived from a decision handed down by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in 1923.2 The case had to do with "the systolic blood pressure deception test," the precursor of the modern polygraph test. The lower court's refusal to admit an expert witness to testify as to the results of this test was sustained on appeal.
Statistics in medical research
Published in Douglas G. Altman, Practical Statistics for Medical Research, 1990
(b)Among the two thirds of drug users who lied, we would expect to fail the polygraph test. Among non-drug users we would expect to fail the test too. Thus the expected proportion of drug users among those failing the test is
Erasing violence: lesbian women asylum applicants in the United States
Published in Journal of Lesbian Studies, 2021
The case of Olha Lyashchynska v U.S. Attorney General (2012), heard by the 11th Circuit, also referred to a lack of corroborating evidence. Lyashchynska left Ukraine after being sexually assaulted by a former boyfriend because he wanted to teach her “how to be a real woman” (Olha Lyashchynska v U.S. Attorney General, 2012, p. 3). She went to the hospital and filed a police report, though the investigation was closed due to lack of evidence. She also suffered another attack in a club. She went to the emergency room after the second attack; however, the police would not file a report after finding out about her sexual orientation. At her first hearing, the Immigration Judge questioned the veracity of all supporting evidence from the hospital and police, because the police officer who filed the report of sexual assault could not be found to corroborate, and the medical documentation was illegible and also not corroborated. Lyashchynska could not provide any additional documentation, and so she willingly took a polygraph test to substantiate her claims. At that point, the Immigration Judge questioned the legitimacy of the polygraph test because she could not prove the expertise of the individual administering the test. The 5th Circuit ultimately opined that “both the IJ [Immigration Judge] and the BIA [Board of Immigration Appeals] weighed the evidence of authenticity and determined that the State Department’s Report was more credible than Petitioner’s testimony and the claims of her family” (Olha Lyaschynska v U.S. Attorney General, 2012, p. 18).
Post-conviction polygraph testing of sex offenders
Published in International Review of Psychiatry, 2019
Don Grubin, Maxim Kamenskov, R. Gregg Dwyer, Tim Stephenson
Virtually every study of polygraph testing has found that polygraphy is associated with a significant increase in the disclosure of information not previously known (Grubin, 2008). This may occur in the pre-test phase, or in the post-test following a deceptive outcome. It is not known why this should be the case. In the UK, evaluations of voluntary and then mandatory sex offender testing found an 80% (Grubin, 2010) and 55% (Gannon et al., 2014) increase in disclosures made by polygraphed offenders compared with non-polygraphed offenders, respectively. Gannon et al. (2014) reported that the odds of a polygraphed offender making a clinically relevant disclosure were 3× higher compared to a non-polygraphed one. While in Grubin (2010), where a different protocol was followed (for example, information was obtained from treatment providers as well as case managers while in Gannon et al. (2014) only case managers were questioned), it was 14× greater. In some cases, the nature of disclosures made may mean that the polygraph test itself does not need to be carried out at all.