The polygraph’s history is replete with success stories. Findings from lie detector tests have contributed immensely to various criminal investigations, leading to the conviction of guilty offenders and helping innocent suspects clear their names.
But instances of polygraph failures exist, too. Cases abound where depraved criminals passed lie detector tests while innocent ones failed these exams, often leading to grievous consequences.
Take the serial killer Gary Ridgway, for instance.
Ridgway passed a lie detector test in 1984 and went on with his murder rampage. It wasn’t until 20 years later that the ‘Green River Killer’ (a befitting macabre title that Ridgway was later christened) confessed to his crimes.
Even more concerning is that law enforcement officers worldwide rely on lie detector tests to put suspects behind bars. But despite many inmates protesting their innocence and being willing to validate that with polygraph exams, our judicial systems are reluctant to apply the same standards in potentially exonerating these individuals.
Why the double standards, you may wonder.
Polygraphs and Law Enforcement
Law enforcement agencies have utilized the polygraph consistently since the technique was invented slightly over a century ago. Lie detector tests have become a reliable tool for eliminating subjects from massive suspect pools, accelerating detective investigations.
In numerous instances, polygraph findings have served as supportive evidence in obtaining convictions.
Solving criminal investigations and getting guilty suspects jailed is undoubtedly one of the best applications of lie detector tests. However, these successful stories don’t paint the actual picture of polygraph’s use (or the lack thereof) in judicial proceedings.
A One-Sided Approach?
It’s relatively easy to schedule a lie detector test during criminal investigations. All you need is a qualified examiner.
The examiner would start by informing the suspect of an intention to polygraph them and the implications of the test findings. If the person agrees, they would need to submit their consent in writing.
The examiner proceeds to conduct the lie detector test in line with the industry standards. Responses to each polygraph question are analyzed, and the findings are interpreted to infer truthfulness or deception.
Hopefully, a guilty suspect fails the lie detector test. And if polygraphs are admissible in their jurisdictions, the findings can help support other evidence for a conviction.
But let’s flip the script a bit!
An inmate has been serving a lengthy jail term while claiming innocence all along. The individual believes they’re wrongly behind bars as the actual criminals roam freely.
In fact, they’re willing to take a polygraph test to prove their innocence. Why isn’t our corrections system giving such people a chance?
Why would polygraph findings contribute to the incarceration of a guilty offender but not the exoneration of innocent ones? This hypocrisy simply stinks to the high heavens.
Why We Should Polygraph Inmates Protesting Their Innocence
Thousands of people are languishing in prison on wrongful convictions. These statistics are higher for cases determined primarily by circumstantial evidence or witness statements.
In some jurisdictions, wrongful convictions are a result of failed judicial systems. Bribery, corruption, and political patronage often see justice auctioned to the highest bidder.
But conviction shouldn’t be the end of the world for an inmate. At least not before they exhaust their appeal credits.
And when a convict freely consents to taking a lie detector test, why would we deny them the opportunity?
No self-respecting country prides itself on maintaining crowded jails. Much less if these facilities are filled with wrongfully convicted prisoners.
Therefore, any attempt to decongest our jails should be welcome, provided that justice is upheld.
Introducing Polygraphs to Solve Acute Shortage in Legal Representation
We cannot apportion the entire blame on law enforcement officers. After all, they’re naturally wired to stop criminals rather than exonerate prisoners protesting their innocence.
One way to solve this quagmire is to increase access to legal representation for convicts.
Many inmates cannot access effective legal representation. Unfortunately, they require lawyers to refer their appeals for review.
Not to mention that appeals referral is a bureaucratic process that often requires several months just to obtain a review sitting.
Fortunately, lie detector tests might help accelerate the slow wheels of justice for innocent inmates. Polygraph findings can provide an appeal review committee with the new evidence they require to overturn wrongful convictions.
Besides, passing the test would increase the examinee’s access to proper legal representation.
Understanding Applicable Scenarios
Even as we advocate conducting polygraph exams on requesting inmates, it’s important to remain objective.
Lie detector tests aren’t 100% accurate. A single issue polygraph does meet the Daubert standard, but it needs to be tested in the courts more often
Therefore, an inmate seeking to prove their innocence using lie detector tests must be serving a jail term in a jurisdiction where polygraph reports are admissible in judicial proceedings.
Without this provision, the findings would be irrelevant even if the examinee passes the test.
To Incriminate or Exonerate: Understanding the Polygraph Perspective
It’s undeniable that polygraphs have contributed immensely to many getting jailed, but not so much to having innocent inmates freed.
However, we cannot blame this unfortunate state of affairs on the credibility of lie detector tests. It has everything to do with our skewed application of justice.
In jurisdictions where polygraph findings are admissible in judicial procedures, the reports are often used during pre-conviction rather than appeal trials.
Something’s got to give! And hopefully soon, if we’re to reduce the number of inmates languishing in prisons on trumped-up charges.
