Forensic polygraph science and its application in law enforcement practice.
Kholodny Yu. I,
Doctor of Law, Candidate of Psychological Sciences,
Head of Department, Institute of Forensic Science of the FSB of Russia
Information bulletin No. 21 based on materials of forensic readings
«Practical requests are the driving force behind the development of forensic science and forensic examination.»
Academy of Management of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2003, pp. 14-19.
For decades, domestic legal science considered the technology of obtaining information from a person using a polygraph to be a pseudoscientific method, and the use of a polygraph in law enforcement practice to be fundamentally unacceptable.
As a result, more than a quarter of a century ago, the so-called «polygraph problem» emerged in domestic forensics, behind which was hidden a vast amorphous set of questions of a methodological, technical, legal and other nature, which boiled down to two provisions:
a) is it permissible to use a polygraph for law enforcement purposes and
b) if it is permissible, is it possible to use the results obtained with the help of a polygraph for procedural purposes.
At the same time, over the past 10 years, the so-called «non-traditional method» of solving, investigating and preventing crimes — a polygraph survey (PUS) — has been actively introduced into the activities of law enforcement agencies and special services of Russia.
The individual works that appeared on the topic of the “polygraph problem” were disjointed in nature and dealt only with individual issues.
As a result, a paradoxical situation arose in domestic forensic science: a method that had been very poorly studied and did not have the necessary scientific justification began to be introduced into the country’s law enforcement practice.
The development of the problem of using the polygraph in domestic law enforcement practice began with determining the place of the IUP in the system of methods for identifying information hidden by a person.
As a result, it was shown that at present there are four methods for identifying information hidden by a person, one of which is the psychophysiological method of «lie detection».
The volume of information about the psychophysiological method of «lie detection» accumulated in world practice constitutes an independent set of scientific and applied knowledge, united by the name «forensic polygraphology».
The possibilities of forensic polygraphology are not limited to a private method — the IPC, which is aimed at identifying information hidden by a person by monitoring and evaluating his physiological reactions (observed in breathing, the cardiovascular system or in changes in the electrical properties of the skin) as a result of specially organized observation.
Potentially, forensic polygraphology, in addition to the OIP, has several more private methods that are part of the unified psychophysiological method of «lie detection».
These are:
a) acoustic method, implemented with the help of so-called voice stress analyzers and focused on diagnosing ideal traces of an event by assessing the amplitude-frequency characteristics of a person's voice;
b) psycholinguistic method, implemented for the same purposes by monitoring and assessing the temporal, lexical and syntactic characteristics of a person's speech;
c) encephalographic method, implemented for the same purposes by monitoring and evaluating the evoked potentials of the cortical-subcortical structures of the human brain; and some others.
A deep understanding of the technology of the EIP of various purposes and the natural scientific foundations of the psychophysiological method of «lie detection», as well as their analysis from the standpoint of the categorical apparatus of modern forensic science made it possible to form a number of theoretical provisions new to forensic science, to one degree or another concerning the “ideal traces” of events stored in human memory.
Firstly, characteristics of “ideal traces” of a crime that had not previously been described in forensic science were established.
When comparing ideal traces with materially fixed ones, forensic science was usually limited to three characteristics:
1) ideal traces are inaccessible for their direct study,
2) access to the study of an ideal trace is possible only after its materialization,
3) materialized ideal traces are significantly more informative.
Research has made it possible to establish the fourth characteristic of an ideal trace — dependence on the psychological characteristics of its bearer (that is, a specific person).
A previously undetected fifth characteristic of an ideal trace was also described: like a materially fixed trace, it is subject to natural destruction (the action of an objective factor — forgetting), however, unlike a material trace, it is inaccessible to intentional destruction (that is, it is not subject to intentional, purposeful forgetting).
Secondly, a certain contribution was made to the further improvement of such an investigative action as presentation for identification, during the implementation of which the fourth and fifth characteristics of an ideal trace are clearly manifested.
Usually, in forensic literature, when summing up this investigative action, three possible results are considered:
a) identification (identification, establishing the identity of the mental image and the image of the object presented for identification);
b) similarity (no establishment of identity, but identification in the perceived image of individual features that coincide with the features preserved in the memory of the identifying person); and
c) non-identification (establishing the absence of identity of the mental image and the image of the object presented for identification).
In addition to the above, in investigative practice there are cases of mistaken identification and mistaken non-identification.
However, in the available legal literature it was not possible to find any data on the sixth outcome of presentation for identification, which is deliberate non-identification, that is, deliberate concealment from the investigator of the fact of identification of the presented object.
The use of the IIP after the identification parade makes it possible to confidently establish the fact of the presence (or absence) of the sixth outcome of this investigative action — deliberate non-identification.
As was shown earlier, the use of a polygraph:
a) makes it possible to objectively diagnose the presence in a person's memory of ideal traces of a particular event that he has concealed,
b) makes ideal traces accessible to objective instrumental research before their materialization and without their materialization,
c) allows to objectively evaluate the main characteristics of the materialized image for the presence (or absence) of intentional distortions in them.
Thirdly, in the course of theoretical research it was proven that from a scientific point of view, the OIP is a complex psychological and psychophysiological method of testing human memory (and not a “diagnosis of emotional tension,” as was previously believed).
As a result, the theoretical concept of the OIP was proposed and scientifically substantiated — the theory of targeted memory testing.
Fourthly, as a result of theoretical research, it was shown that OIP is one of the private methods of forensic diagnostics — diagnostics of ideal traces of events that have criminally relevant significance, and some inaccuracies made by some leading domestic criminologists in interpreting the natural scientific foundations of the diagnostic process using a polygraph were corrected.
Furthermore, it was proven that the introduction of the IPC into the system of forensic methods expands the traditional list of diagnostic and diagnosed objects, which previously were considered to be only material objects: semantic concepts have become a new — “virtual” — group of objects of forensic diagnostics (names, surnames, nicknames of people; addresses; areas of land; geographical names, time intervals, etc.).
An assessment of the psychophysiological method of «lie detection» using a polygraph from the standpoint of the methodology of forensic science and a check of the compliance of forensic polygraphology with the criteria established for independent branches of forensic technology have given the right to conclude that there is every reason to recognize forensic polygraphology as a new independent direction (or branch) of forensic technology.
This result is of the utmost importance from a practical point of view.
A study of the use of the polygraph in practice from the standpoint of forensic tactics provided grounds for establishing three classes of investigative situations, which, according to the currently existing classification, are classified as complex, and in which the implementation of OIP is especially effective.
The first class includes situations in which the search, inquiry or investigation is completely unable to obtain the information necessary for solving and investigating a crime without involving a specific person.
The second class consists of situations in which obtaining the necessary information is possible using traditional operational means or forensic methods, but this is associated with large material and/or time costs or the involvement of significant operational forces.
The use of IPR allows you to choose the most rational way out of the situation, while saving the aforementioned resources.
The third class includes situations that require urgent (within a few hours or one to two days) receipt of information, and no other traditional methods or ways can ensure the required speed of response.
Such a task can only be solved by a survey using a polygraph, which establishes the presence (or absence) of the required information in the memory of a specific person.
Further study of the applied capabilities of the OIP made it possible to scientifically substantiate that OIP is a private method of forensic prevention of crimes and offenses related to the performance of official duties.
Thus, close organic connections were revealed between forensic polygraphology as a new direction of forensic technology and other sections of modern forensic science — forensic tactics and forensic methodology.
The list of issues of using the polygraph in practice, deserving careful consideration, is very wide and covers methodological, technical, legal, ethical and personnel aspects.
The range of issues related to the establishment and development of forensic polygraphology is even more extensive.
Therefore, this article will consider only one particular issue — the procedural application of the IIP.
In domestic legal literature, various opinions have been repeatedly expressed about the admissibility (or, rather, inadmissibility) of performing the IIP in procedural conditions.
At the same time, the possibility of using a polygraph during interrogation has attracted the greatest attention.
The position of R. S. Belkin, V. I. Komissarov, Yu. G. Korukhov, A. S. Podshibyakin and other leading Russian criminologists on this issue is well known.
Therefore, without dwelling on the analysis of their views, it is advisable to especially emphasize that, due to the possibility of ambiguous interpretation of the articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, opponents of the polygraph did not see a legal basis for its use during interrogation, while supporters of the polygraph in the same conditions did not see insurmountable obstacles to such use.
It was precisely this ambiguity of interpretation that was the reason why the first IIP during interrogation in domestic procedural practice was carried out back in 1994 in the interests of the investigation conducted by one of the divisions of the Main Military Prosecutor's Office.
In general, it can be stated that the possibility of performing IIP during interrogation is certainly controversial and requires detailed research by criminologists and proceduralists.
The use of a polygraph during interrogation is possible, in our opinion, only if it is directly enshrined in the criminal procedure law.
Similar questions arise when assessing the prospects of using a polygraph during identification.
The worldwide practice of using the polygraph for the purpose of detecting deliberate non-identification, which has been going on for many decades, shows that this method can be used to control non-identification of not only visually perceived objects (photographs of persons, objects, areas of terrain, etc.), but also semantic concepts (names, surnames and nicknames of people, addresses, areas of terrain, names of objects, etc.).
Involving a polygraph specialist in checking the results of identification can be very useful in solving and investigating crimes.
However, the most promising form of using the IIP in terms of procedure is an examination.
It has already been noted that the use of a polygraph for the purpose of diagnosing ideal traces of events, carried out in compliance with the necessary procedural requirements for expert studies, turns the IIP procedure into a in forensic psychophysiological examination.
With the help of this new type of examination, an assessment of the reliability of a person's testimony obtained from him during an inquiry, investigation or trial is achieved, that is, issues are resolved that lie outside the scope of forensic psychological, forensic psychiatric and complex forensic psychological-psychiatric examination.