Trial by polygraph: Reconsidering the use of the guilty knowledge technique in court.

Abstract

Polygraph test results are by and large ruled inadmissible evidence in criminal courts in the US, Canada, and Israel. This is well-conceived with regard to the dominant technique of polygraph interrogation, known as the Control Question Technique (CQT), because it indeed does not meet the required standards for admissible scientific evidence. However, a lesser known and rarely practiced technique, known as the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT), is capable, if carefully administered, of meeting the recently set Daubert criteria. This paper describes the technique, and argues for considering its admissibility as evidence in criminal courts.

The Polygraph and the Detection of Deception

“…Based on the controllable false positive rate and its firm grounding in orienting theory (Verschuere, Crombez, De Clercq, & Koster, 2004), many researchers feel that the CIT is ready for field application (Ben Shakhar, Bar Hillel, & Kremnitzer, 2002). Still, it is only rarely used, with Japan being the only exception (Hira & Furumitsu, 2002;Nakayama, 2002).…”

Potential Jurors’ Perceptions of Polygraphs in Court

“…The GKT process includes examiner questions which have one relevant choice, typically a criminal detail, and control alternatives which would be inconsequential to those with no knowledge of the matter. Ben-Shakhar, Bar-Hillel, and Kremnitzer (2002) explained that the theoretical basis of the GKT is in the orienting responses of humans. To understand this, a simple definition is required.…”

“…Given that the Daubert standard requires polygraph evidence to be demonstrably valid and relevant, the lack of consistency in the literature is an issue for proponents of the polygraph such as Ben-Shakhar et al (2002). Additionally, if the examiner needs to testify before the court, there are regulations that they must meet (Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 2018).…”

“…The simultaneous presence of cautious criticism from Staunton and Hammond (2011) and strong support from Ben-Shakhar et al (2002) (Pettit, 2007). Within this section, Pettit (2007) explained the Justices' interest in preserving traditional roles for criminal justice decision-making.…”

“…The court history of the polygraph has been dominated by these negative opinions, and it was only recently (i.e., within the last 20 -25 years) that the instrument found even niche acceptance among the judiciary (Lee v. Martinez, 2004). Supporters of the polygraph argue that its potential value outweighs the possibility of error, and that it is no longer justified to deny the instrument its place due to old case history (Ben-Shakhar et al, 2002). Because of government classification of most polygraph research, there is relatively little information and study on polygraphs in comparison to public opinions on the courts or the justice system in general.…”