Використання в доказуванні результатів досліджень, проведених із застосуванням поліграфа

Статтю присвячено аналізу теоретичних і практичних аспектів використання поліграфа як актуального техніко-криміналістичного засобу в системі доказування. Розкрито правові та методологічні умови допустимості результатів висновку експерта, отриманого на підставі проведення психологічної експертизи із застосуванням комп’ютерного поліграфа. Встановлено, що, попри збільшення застосування поліграфа у процесі отримання доказів, його результати мають імовірнісний характер і потребують критичної оцінки. Серед проблем – відсутність єдиних стандартів інтерпретації результатів, інструментальні похибки, висока залежність висновків від кваліфікації експерта, а також можливість свідомої чи несвідомої протидії дослідженню з боку підекспертного. Наголошено на необхідності уніфікації методик, правового регулювання процедури та дотримання процесуальних гарантій при використанні поліграфа в доказуванні.

The study employed legal-theoretical analysis of Ukrainian regulatory sources, judicial practice materials, and scientific literature on polygraph use, reviewing national and international experience to develop criteria for evidence verification and evaluation.

Background & Context

This study analyzes the theoretical and practical aspects of using computerized polygraphs as a technical forensic tool in the evidence process in Ukrainian criminal proceedings, motivated by recent updates to regulatory and legal acts, the need to unify polygraph examination practices, and growing law enforcement demand for this technology. Ukraine represents a particularly important case study in polygraph jurisprudence, as it sits at the intersection of post-Soviet legal traditions and European integration pressures.

Recent Ukrainian legislation, including a February 2025 government resolution, now formally regulates psychophysiological examination using polygraph during special security vetting of foreigners and stateless persons, reflecting the increasing institutionalization of polygraph use. However, the legal community remains divided on whether computerized polygraph results should carry evidentiary weight or serve merely as investigative leads.

The study emerges during a critical period for Ukrainian criminal justice, with wartime security pressures creating urgent demand for reliable deception detection tools while simultaneously heightening concerns about procedural safeguards and the risk of wrongful convictions based on probabilistic evidence.

Research Design & Methodology

The authors conducted an analysis of scientific sources and materials from judicial practice to examine polygraph use as a technical-forensic means in the evidentiary system. This appears to be a legal-theoretical study rather than an empirical validation study, focusing on the doctrinal and procedural questions surrounding polygraph admissibility in Ukraine's criminal courts.

The research methodology included:

• Systematic review of Ukrainian regulatory frameworks governing forensic psychological examination with computerized polygraph
• Analysis of judicial practice and case law regarding the use of polygraph-derived evidence
• Examination of expert qualification requirements and methodological standardization issues
• Critical assessment of the probabilistic nature of polygraph results within the Ukrainian evidence evaluation framework

The authors reviewed national and international experience in polygraph use, studying risks associated with technical errors, subjective interpretation factors, and the possibility of examinees counteracting the examination. The study synthesizes legal doctrine, professional standards, and practical forensic science considerations to develop criteria for evidence verification and evaluation.

Results & Key Findings

Despite the scientific and technological potential of the polygraph, the authors found that its results are probabilistic in nature and cannot be considered conclusive evidence without strict procedural controls, with further legitimization in criminal proceedings requiring unified methodologies, clear legal regulation, and adherence to procedural guarantees.

The study identified several critical problems with current polygraph practice in Ukraine:

• Lack of uniform interpretation standards: No consensus exists on scoring methods or decision thresholds across examiners and institutions
• Instrumental errors and technical limitations: Equipment variability and measurement reliability concerns affect result validity
• High dependency on examiner qualifications: Conclusion quality varies significantly based on expert training and experience
• Countermeasure vulnerability: Examinees may consciously or unconsciously employ strategies that distort physiological responses

The study revealed a positive trend in legal regulation of computer polygraph use, yet identified continuing practical needs for developing clear procedural guarantees regarding admissibility and reliability of results, along with methodological support for evaluation using logical-probabilistic approaches. Ukrainian courts currently treat polygraph examination conclusions as indirect evidence requiring corroboration from independent sources.

Discussion & Significance

This study makes an important contribution to understanding how emerging European legal systems navigate the tension between technological innovation in forensic science and traditional evidentiary standards. The authors' emphasis on the probabilistic rather than deterministic nature of polygraph results aligns with modern scientific understanding while challenging practices that may treat such examinations as definitive proof of deception.

The call for unified methodologies is particularly significant given Ukraine's decentralized polygraph examination infrastructure. Information obtained through psychophysiological polygraph examination constitutes indirect evidence that confirms only the subjective significance of specific stimuli, potentially indicating concealed information about crime circumstances or answer sincerity, with results gaining evidentiary force only within the framework of court-appointed forensic examination. This framework preserves judicial gatekeeping while allowing polygraph evidence under controlled conditions.

The study's timing during Ukraine's wartime period adds urgency to questions about balancing security needs against individual rights. The authors' insistence on procedural guarantees serves as an important counterweight to pressures for expedited screening and investigation processes that might sacrifice accuracy for speed.

Limitations & Considerations

As a legal-theoretical analysis rather than empirical research, this study does not present new accuracy data or controlled validation of specific polygraph techniques. The findings rely on existing literature and judicial practice analysis rather than original field research or experimental studies. The generalizability of Ukrainian legal conclusions to other jurisdictions is limited by the country's unique post-Soviet legal traditions and ongoing wartime conditions.

The study does not appear to quantify the frequency of polygraph use in Ukrainian courts or systematically analyze conviction rates or case outcomes when polygraph evidence is presented. Additionally, the analysis does not examine specific countermeasure effectiveness or provide empirical data on how often technical errors or examiner variability affect case outcomes in practice.

The authors' focus on procedural reform may not adequately address whether polygraph examination, even under ideal conditions with perfect standardization, can overcome fundamental psychophysiological limitations that create both false positive and false negative errors at rates unacceptable for high-stakes criminal adjudication.

Practical Applications

For Ukrainian legal practitioners, this study provides a framework for understanding when and how polygraph examination results may be appropriately introduced in criminal proceedings. Defense counsel can use the authors' analysis of probabilistic limitations and countermeasure possibilities to challenge overreliance on polygraph evidence, while prosecutors must recognize that such evidence requires substantial corroboration. Courts benefit from the proposed evaluation criteria that distinguish between methodologically sound examinations meeting procedural standards and those lacking adequate foundation.

The call for standardized training and certification has direct implications for Ukrainian forensic institutions and polygraph professional organizations. Current regulations define specialists must have appropriate training, hold state certification documents, possess polygraph operation skills, and understand examination methodologies, but the study suggests these requirements need further development and enforcement. International polygraph practitioners should note that Ukraine's evolving legal framework may serve as a model for other transitional legal systems attempting to integrate polygraph technology while maintaining evidentiary rigor and protecting defendant rights.