The main difficulties and problems of using a polygraph in law enforcement and personnel work and recommended ways to overcome them.

The use of a polygraph in law enforcement and personnel activities from the moment of initiation of the procedure to the final decision and its implementation is a multi-level process, during the execution of which many difficulties and problems inevitably arise.

According to the criterion of proximity of causes and similarity of possible ways to overcome them, all these difficulties and problems can be divided into four main groups:

regulatory
organizational
methodological
psychophysiological.

At the same time, taking into account the conventionality of the proposed division, it should be noted that the problems included in the indicated groups are deeply interconnected, and that they are “nested” into each other like a “matryoshka doll”, when one problem inevitably gives rise to others, and, conversely, the successful solution of one problem creates the conditions for overcoming others.

For example, without solving the problem of achieving the necessary validity and reliability of results obtained directly with the help of a polygraph at the psychophysiological level, we will not be able to qualitatively solve the problem of correct methodological support for its use, because good methods can be created and work effectively only on the basis of a correct understanding and competent consideration of the underlying psychophysiological laws and patterns.

In turn, without creating an adequate methodological base, we will not be able to correctly organize the inclusion and positioning of the technology of using a polygraph in a single system of measures for studying persons of interest or ensuring security within the framework of law enforcement or personnel activities.

And finally, without a reliable, methodologically supported, well-organized organizational system, we cannot create its full-fledged legal regulation, both from the point of view of initiating the procedure in question and implementing the results obtained during it.

The legal regulator (legislator), before writing the rules and conditions for using the polygraph, must be absolutely sure that this procedure is really useful, reliable, will not fail and will not lead to abuse.

It should be noted that the difficulties and problems discussed below are not specific to Russia; they exist everywhere where the polygraph is widely used. That is why, in order to solve them, it is necessary to focus on the «best practices» that can be found in the USA, Israel, Japan, and even here in Russia.

At the same time, the most important condition for overcoming existing difficulties and problems, taking into account their close relationship, is the use of a systems approach.

Regulatory and legal problem

The general outlines of this problem are clear to everyone.

When it is mentioned, people usually start talking about the need to adopt a law on the polygraph.

This is correct — the law is really needed. However, we must not forget that there are such regulatory and legal aspects that are very difficult to spell out in a general law, since they are of a purely local nature and can change depending on the situation in which the polygraph is used.

Today, when discussing the future law on the polygraph, the main emphasis is on the legal definition of the conditions under which the polygraph can be used without violating the rights of citizens.

At the same time, there is a much more complex legal question — what to do with the results of polygraph examinations if they are incriminating?

Where are the legal criteria and possible limits of their application?

It is well known that people's fear of the polygraph, its criticism from various public institutions, as well as possible abuses associated with its use, arise not at the level of initiating the use of the polygraph, but in connection with the implementation of the results obtained with its help.

For example, it is possible to obtain permission to test judges or deputies on the polygraph, as has sometimes been proposed recently, but what will we do with the results if they are incriminating?

What specific actions can be taken based on these results, and within what legal framework can they be used?

How to correctly establish the normative order that would determine the correct use of these results?

In reality, this is a very serious regulatory and legal problem that hinders the expansion of the use of the polygraph.

It is quite obvious that it will be extremely difficult to overcome it systematically within the framework of a single legislation. At the same time, depending on the goals and objectives, it can be solved locally, for example, within the framework of one federal agency, such as the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

The main thing is to clearly and accurately spell out all the necessary administrative procedures related to the use of the polygraph in a separate regulatory document.

As an example of the «best practice» of preparing such an internal regulatory document, we can cite the «Rules for the Use of the Polygraph in the Security Measures System of the Department of Energy» approved by the US Federal Government (FR Doc. E6-16049 dated October 30, 2006).

They describe step-by-step and in great detail the entire administrative part of the polygraph testing procedure from the moment the task is set to the completion of the implementation of the obtained results, including those with an indictable focus.

Another example of «best practice» in the implementation of polygraph test results, both incriminating and exculpatory, is their current use as evidence in US courts. As is known, for a long time, most states in this country prohibited the use of polygraph test results in court.

This prohibition has now been overcome, thanks to the introduction of the so-called Daubert precedent into judicial practice.

In accordance with this precedent, which, by the way, extends its effect to all evidence obtained not only with the help of a polygraph, but also any other applied scientific methods, a procedure is established according to which the decision on accepting the results of a polygraph test as evidence in court is made personally by the judge conducting the case.

However, before making such a decision, he is obliged during the trial to first verify the scientific validity of the specific polygraph testing method used, and then that this method was applied correctly.

In other words, the judge must establish in court the theoretical and practical validity (scientific justification) of the method used for the examination. Usually, in addition to the polygraph examiner who conducted the testing, additional experts are invited to the courtroom for debate, speaking for and against the use of the polygraph as a means of examination.

Organizational problems

Overcoming the difficulties in developing an effective regulatory framework for the use of the polygraph should be largely facilitated by the correct solution of organizational issues of its use.

What does this mean?

The issue is, first of all, how to optimally position an event using a polygraph, taking into account its inherent limitations and shortcomings, such as, for example, the limited scope of application or insufficient accuracy, among other methods of studying persons of interest, assessing and verifying the reliability of the information they provide.

The polygraph is used to assess the reliability of the information provided by a person, and then other available methods must be used that can provide not only an assessment, but also a direct verification of the information received.

This entire complex must work as a single whole. At the same time, the first stage of such a system, at least, must always be a mandatory recheck of the results of the polygraph test and the conclusions made by a second independent expert.

Particular importance should be given to resolving organizational issues (problems) of joint use of the polygraph and other special methods when conducting various personnel screenings, and, above all, in the interests of ensuring the security of the organization.

Today, the «best practice» of the specified integrated approach to conducting personnel screenings using the polygraph should be considered the system created by the US Department of Energy.

Its main feature is that polygraph testing is not considered as an independent, self-contained and complete event, but is the first, extremely important, but only stage in a single set of measures aimed at ensuring the personnel security of the organization.

Based on negative results of polygraph screening testing (significant reactions to test questions are identified), no administrative or personnel decisions are ever made immediately, but only a special process is launched within the framework of the specified system, the purpose of which is to determine the reasons for the appearance of significant reactions to test questions in the subject.

This approach allows minimizing the possible negative consequences of inevitable errors that always occur during the use of applied psychophysiological methods in solving personnel problems, and significantly increases the effectiveness of the entire personnel security system as a whole.

On the other hand, a vivid example of the problems and serious consequences that result from an incorrect solution to organizational issues related to the implementation of polygraph test results is the well-known case of former Soviet-Russian intelligence agent Aldridge Ames, who was then the head of the CIA's Eastern Bloc counterintelligence unit.

During routine (actually screening) testing, a polygraph examiner recorded «significant» reactions to questions about his connection with one of the Eastern Bloc intelligence services.

In this case, both the polygraph and the testing method used worked with 100 percent efficiency, but the polygraph examiner, who was given the right to make the final conclusion on the results of the polygraph test, gave in, believed Ames's «version» regarding the possible causes of the recorded reactions, and let him go in peace, giving him the opportunity to work for foreign intelligence for several more years.

There was no recheck of the incriminating results obtained by the polygraph.

Thus, the CIA's unified security system, or more precisely, the organization of joint use of the polygraph and other special means of rechecking and confirming the information obtained with its help, did not work.

When, however, for another reason, not related to the polygraph, these special means were used, Ames was very quickly exposed and arrested.

By the way, opponents of the polygraph often use the Ames case as a «strong» argument in support of their position, but, as we can see, they are very wrong. The polygraph is not to blame for this error, since its true causes lay in the unresolved organizational problem.

Methodological Problems

There would be far fewer difficulties and problems with the regulatory and organizational support for the use of the polygraph in law enforcement and personnel work if there were not an objectively large group of methodological problems that can be conditionally divided into three main categories:

problems associated with the actual technologies (methods) of testing using a polygraph;
problems caused by the existing practice of training specialists — polygraph examiners;
problems caused by the low quality of the equipment used (polygraphs).

Let's consider each of these categories of problems in more detail.

1) The problem of creating and applying in specific conditions certain methods of polygraph testing is so extensive and complex that it is not possible to begin a detailed discussion of it within the framework of this article.

It is only necessary to note that very often the problems of practical use of any applied method, including polygraph testing, are associated not so much with internal methodological defects, but mainly with the vicious practice of its incorrect application.

There are many horrifying, blood-curdling examples of absolutely illiterate use of the polygraph, which, in particular, V. V. Korovin has repeatedly mentioned in his speeches.

Many outrageous examples of vicious practice of using the polygraph can also be seen on the Internet forum of the EPOS company.

After reading the facts presented there, one gets the impression that a certain part of polygraph examiners in Russia are conducting a large-scale experiment on its citizens. What do they not do, how do they not mock the unfortunate people.

And not on regular testers, who are allowed to develop new methods, but who also have to be paid for it, but on random ordinary citizens who, by coincidence, found themselves on the polygraph.

Thoughts about the gross violation of the rights of these people do not even come close to appearing in the heads of these «specialist» polygraph examiners, and the «new» methods they continuously produce are superficial, ill-conceived, and directly testify to the ignorance and poor professional training of their authors.

Such «innovators» need to be reminded that applied psychophysiology, a section of which is the applied use of the polygraph for the purpose of assessing the reliability of human statements (assertions), is a powerful applied discipline with a solid methodological foundation that does not need pseudo-experiments or pseudo-researchers. It has a fundamental theoretical and practical base.

It has long since developed reliable and proven research technologies that do not require any modifications «on the fly», and which only require correct application and a good knowledge of the boundary conditions of their applicability.

If there is a need to correct these carefully developed technologies or create truly new methods, then this must be done professionally, following the standards and criteria accepted in science.

The creation of a new method is also a professional activity that requires deep knowledge and practical skills, and attempts to continuously propose «new» methods in order to compensate for the lack of professional knowledge and skills should be immediately stopped.

Practical events are not a place for experiments.

The most important characteristics of any applied methods are their scientific validity, accuracy and reliability.

Unfortunately, there are no applied methods without errors, and every polygraph examiner, like a doctor, inevitably has his own professional «graveyard» — these are those unfortunate people about whom he made erroneous conclusions, and, perhaps, seriously damaged their lives.

This should never be forgotten, and therefore polygraph examiners should not proudly declare that they have conducted, for example, 10 thousand examinations.

They should remember that in 1000 of them they made mistakes (if we consider the relative accuracy of the method to be about 90%, which is quite consistent with real estimates).

Moreover, the doctor, as a rule, remembers all his mistakes, and many modern polygraph examiners often do not even think about them. Every polygraph examiner must know, remember and constantly analyze his mistakes.

2) The problem of high-quality training of polygraph examiners is the most acute, and its roots lie in the lack of uniform training standards and strict requirements for assessing the quality of training and retraining of specialists.

I would especially like to draw attention to the immorality of such a form of training polygraph examiners as distance learning via the Internet.

This has never happened in the history of the polygraph! In Russia, we have many shortcomings in connection with the transition to pseudo-capitalist relations in society and the economy, but this is already a clear excess.

No one denies the commercial orientation of the polygraph, but we must still know the limit and understand that you cannot make money on the health and destinies of people.

Can you imagine distance learning for a surgeon or, for example, a hairdresser?

With difficulty. By the way, a hairdresser is trained for at least six months, and a polygraph examiner is promised to be trained in absentia in 2 weeks.

In addition, a hairdresser trained in absentia will most likely be punished very quickly for the quality of his work. And a correspondence polygraph examiner? Who will pay for his mistakes.

Here we are dealing with the emergence of a very serious problem, which, if not eliminated in the bud, will simply force society to rebel against the applied use of the polygraph and completely ban this entire area of activity.

The main thing in the work of a polygraph examiner is practical skills, which are, in principle, impossible to master in absentia.

A polygraph examiner, like a turner, hairdresser, seamstress, doctor, psychologist — all of them can only study in person. General principles and theory can be taught remotely, but practical skills can only be transmitted and learned through personal communication with a teacher and master.

How can we overcome the above-mentioned problems in the area of methodological support and professional training of polygraph examiners?

As before, with the help of the world's «best practices», the essence of which boils down to the mandatory implementation and strict adherence to clear criteria and standards.

An alternative to the current bacchanalia in Russia in the field of methodology and training of polygraph examiners should be a Standard System of Training and Education in Standard Methods, including a Standard System of Double Internal Control of Obtained Results and Standard Criteria for their Evaluation.

It is important to emphasize that not only in applied psychophysiology, but also in all other applied disciplines, the objective lack of detailed scientific development of the methods used is always replaced by clear standards for their application.

Only standards allow us to evaluate the correctness of the use of applied methods and the quality of the results obtained with their help.

Where can I get these standards? Please, here too, the best world practices are at our service.

We just need to acknowledge their existence, and not engage in boasting, trying to prove to the whole world that «they» are doing it all wrong, and that we have the best, which is what some polygraph examiners, who do not know the true state of affairs and are carried away by «creating» new methods, like to assert.

For example, in the US, federal agencies do not conduct a single study that is not carried out in accordance with accepted standards and for which mandatory secondary control is not applied within the framework of a specially organized system of using a polygraph to solve certain problems (law enforcement or personnel), as mentioned above.

By the way, the first computer polygraphs, which appeared in the early 1990s in the US Department of Defense, were created precisely so that a polygraph examiner on the spot could immediately receive a second, independent assessment of the results of the study he conducted.

It should be noted that it will be extremely difficult to introduce uniform standards for the use of the polygraph and the implementation of the results obtained throughout the country due to the abundance of schools, approaches, views, departmental and corporate interests.

However, within the framework of one department, especially one such as the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which has effective internal management mechanisms, this can be achieved quite realistically.

In this regard, it is necessary to emphasize the special significance and important role of the recently prepared and issued “Unified Requirements”, which essentially should become the basis for the creation of the entire subsequent system of standardization of the use of the polygraph for solving various intra-departmental tasks.

3) The category of methodological problems should undoubtedly include issues of the quality of technical means (polygraphs) used to record psychophysiological indicators and their changes. It is quite obvious that it is impossible to obtain high-quality and reliable results using low-quality equipment.

For example, in medical polygraphs used in operating rooms and intensive care units, the main requirement is the maximum possible compliance of the recorded physiological indicators with the physiological processes that they reflect.

Failure to comply with this requirement is associated with an increased risk of patient death.

Unfortunately, in many domestic polygraphs used in law enforcement and personnel work, this requirement is far from always met.

Sometimes, looking at the signals of physiological indicators displayed by such devices, you begin to doubt whether they are recorded from a living person.

Without going into further discussion of the problem of the quality of technical means intended for use in solving problems of applied psychophysiology, we will only emphasize the importance of this problem and recommend that greater caution and prudence be exercised in choosing devices for use in practical work.

1 2