The (F)utility of Post-Conviction Polygraph Testing

Abstract

The apparent utility of the polygraph to work both as a treatment and supervision aid and as a deterrent for future offending is cited as ample justification for its use. This article examines these claims to demonstrate that although post-conviction polygraph testing may have some utility by increasing disclosures of prior offending and, within specific cases, admissions of treatment and supervision violations, the limited evidence accumulated thus far does not adequately ascertain its accuracy nor support its efficacy or effectiveness as a deterrent. The article concludes with recommendations for creating a real evidentiary base beyond polygraph testing's apparent ability to elicit more information from offenders to evidence that can determine whether it is efficacious and effective in reducing criminality and deviance.

Sexual History Disclosure Polygraph Outcomes

“…While our results do not offer any insight into how polygraphy interacts with recidivism generally (as no current study of youth sex offenders has; see Rosky, 2012), our results suggest that juveniles appear to pass or fail their sexual history disclosure polygraph examinations at a statistically similar rate as adults (about one third of the time). First, clinicians who argue that polygraphy should not be used with juvenile offenders because they believe juveniles are relatively more forthright and honest in treatment should take pause and consider our findings.…”

“…While our results do not offer any insight into how polygraphy interacts with recidivism generally (as no current study of youth sex offenders has; see Rosky, 2012), our results suggest that juveniles appear to pass or fail their sexual history disclosure polygraph examinations at a statistically similar rate as adults (about one third of the time). But, the weight of that perspective stands on the lack of empirical ties between polygraph-induced disclosure and observable recidivism rates (Prescott, 2012;Rosky, 2012). Ultimately, as researchers have continued to investigate and confirm the unique characteristics and etiological factors associated with juvenile sexual deviance (Driemeyer, Yoon, & Briken, 2011;Seto & Lalumiere, 2010), our results suggest that sexual history polygraphy is one area in which juveniles might actually be similar to their adult counterparts.…”

“…First, the accuracy and validity of polygraphy is questionable (Rosky, 2012). First, the accuracy and validity of polygraphy is questionable (Rosky, 2012).…”

Expeditious Disclosure of Sexual History via Polygraph Testing: Treatment Outcome and Sex Offense Recidivism

“…For more on the benefits of polygraph testing as it relates to sex-offender management see (English, 1998;English, Jones, Pasini-Hill, Patrick, & Cooley-Towell, 2000;Hindman & Peters, 2001;Grubin, 2008;Levenson, 2009). Polygraph skeptics point to the unanswered questions of construct validity, referring to some types of testing as pseudoscience, and point to the lack of data showing the accuracy of polygraph screening tests-the exams most commonly used in sexual history disclosure tests (Cross & Saxe, 2001;National Research Council, 2003;Ben-Shakhar, 2008;Rosky, 2013). Despite controversy and many unanswered questions, polygraph testing remains a powerful toolviewed as being more accurate than reliance on clinical/professional judgment to decipher client honesty-which assists with determining treatment targets and supervision strategies.…”

“…There is also a significant body of literature on countermeasures and threats to polygraph accuracy (Honts, Hodes, & Raskin, 1985;Patrick & Iacano, 1989;Honts, Raskin, & Kircher, 1994;National Research Council, 2003). Rosky (2013) provided a thorough critique of the literature relative to polygraph validity, accuracy, threats to accuracy, and usefulness in postconviction sex-offender testing (PCSOT).…”