Table of Contents
Polygraph tests have long been a subject of debate in both legal and scientific communities. While they have proven effective in certain contexts, their role in the courtroom remains contentious. However, validated polygraph techniques, especially those used for evidentiary purposes, provide compelling results that demonstrate their utility in legal settings. This article explores some of the most reliable evidentiary polygraph techniques, their accuracy, and how they are used in legal proceedings.
What Are Evidentiary Polygraph Techniques?
Evidentiary polygraph techniques are designed to provide reliable and admissible results in court cases. These techniques are typically used to test the truthfulness of individuals in legal disputes, such as criminal investigations or civil matters, where the accuracy of testimony is critical. The most commonly validated evidentiary techniques include the Federal You-Phase, the Event-Specific Zone Comparison Test (ZCT), and the Matte Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Test (MQTZCT).
The Federal You-Phase Technique
The Federal You-Phase technique is one of the most widely used polygraph methods in the United States, especially in federal cases. According to validated studies, it has a correct decision (CD) rate of 90.4%, with a standard deviation of 3.2%, making it one of the more reliable methods for determining truthfulness. This technique, which often uses the Empirical Scoring System (ESS), is particularly useful in multi-issue cases where several topics need to be examined.
While the Federal You-Phase is highly regarded for its accuracy, its inconclusive result (INC) rate is 19.2%, which can present a challenge in cases requiring definitive conclusions. However, in the context of a legal trial, these results can provide significant value when combined with other forms of evidence.
The Event-Specific Zone Comparison Test (ZCT)
The Event-Specific ZCT is another popular evidentiary technique, especially in cases focused on a single incident, such as a crime or specific event. Its structure allows for a more precise comparison of physiological responses to relevant questions versus control questions. Studies indicate that the Event-Specific ZCT has a correct decision (CD) rate of 92.1% and a standard deviation of 2.8%, making it one of the most accurate techniques for assessing truthfulness in event-based investigations.
The inconclusive result (INC) rate for the Event-Specific ZCT is only 9.8%, meaning that it is far less likely to produce ambiguous results compared to other methods. This makes the Event-Specific ZCT a highly reliable tool in criminal proceedings where accuracy is critical.
The Matte Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Test (MQTZCT)
Another validated technique, the Matte Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Test (MQTZCT), is noted for its exceptional accuracy. It boasts a correct decision (CD) rate of 99.4% with a standard deviation of 1.3%, and a low inconclusive result (INC) rate of 2.9%. This technique is particularly effective in high-stakes situations where any margin for error is unacceptable.
Admissibility of Polygraph Results in Court
Despite the high accuracy rates of these polygraph techniques, their admissibility in court varies by jurisdiction. In the U.S., for example, polygraph results are generally inadmissible in federal courts unless both parties agree to their use. However, in some states and countries, polygraph evidence may be accepted under certain conditions, particularly when supported by other corroborating evidence.
Courts are cautious about polygraph evidence due to concerns over false positives and false negatives, as well as the possibility of examiner bias. That said, validated techniques like the Federal You-Phase and Event-Specific ZCT have been used successfully in legal cases when introduced alongside other strong evidence, such as witness testimony or forensic data.
Conclusion
Evidentiary polygraph techniques, such as the Federal You-Phase, Event-Specific ZCT, and Matte Quadri-Track ZCT, have proven to be highly accurate tools for determining truthfulness. While their admissibility in court may be limited, their use as investigative tools remains strong. When combined with other forms of evidence, these validated techniques can play a crucial role in ensuring justice is served.
Sources:
- Nelson, R. (2019). Literature Survey of Structural Weighting of Polygraph Signals: Why Double the EDA? Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment, 48(2).
- Ad Hoc Committee on Validated Techniques (2011). Report of Validated Techniques for Polygraph Testing.
- Validated Technique Summary.
