The place of forensic psychophysiological examination using a polygraph in the system of forensic examinations.

The place of forensic psychophysiological examination using a polygraph in the forensic examination system.

Kholopova E.N.
Doctor of Law,
Candidate of Psychological Sciences,
Expert Psychologist of the State Institution KLSE MJ RF
Kaliningrad

Kravtsova G.K.
Polygraph Specialist
«Kaliningrad Center for Forensic
examination and assessment»
Kaliningrad

Source: Proceedings of the international scientific and practical conference
«Current status and development prospects of the instrumental
«lie detection» method in the interests of state and public security»
(December 2-4, 2008)

The scientific, theoretical and practical development of forensic psychophysiological examination using a polygraph is unthinkable without determining its place and role in the system of forensic examinations.

As the analysis of legal practice shows, the need to rethink individual theoretical provisions of forensic examination, and primarily those related to the classification existing in the system of forensic examinations, has long been overdue.

It is the classification that currently needs to be rethought and clarified.

The classification of forensic examinations has significant methodological, theoretical and practical significance, since it allows determining the directions of their methodological and organizational support.

As is known, forensic examinations are usually divided into classes, genera, types and subtypes, among which, according to the classification of A.R. Shlyakhov1, forensic psychophysiological examination as a type of examination was included in the class of «forensic medical and psychophysiological».

Characterizing the differentiation of forensic examinations, it is important to highlight their following essential features:

• The class of forensic examination is determined by its connection with a specific science;

• The type of forensic examination is a specific group of carriers of legally significant information for it.

• The division of forensic examination into classes and types differentiates the training and retraining of expert personnel, their competence and specialization;

• allows the person ordering the forensic examination to confidently navigate in the choice of the appropriate type (kind) of examination.

If we accept the assertion that the definition of the boundaries and competence of each class of examination should be fundamentally determined by the subject classifications of the basic sciences, then sciences that have different scientific principles, methods and means of relevant research as the subject of study are assigned to one class.

Forensic medical examination is a type of forensic examination that has its own specifics, determined by the peculiarities of medicine as a branch of knowledge and a special object of study, which is a person.

Forensic medical examination belongs to the class of «medical examination», the genus of «actual medical examination» and includes the following types:

a) forensic medical examination of living persons;
b) forensic medical examination of material evidence;
c) forensic medical examination of case materials;
d) forensic medical examination of medical activity;
d) forensic medical examination of a corpse.

A. A. Mokhov substantiated the allocation of forensic medical examination as a separate class, developed a classification of medical examinations and demonstrated its practical significance in civil proceedings.

Forensic psychiatric examination is developing within the framework of forensic psychiatry. Its subject is to establish the presence or absence of a mental disorder in a person referred for examination. The object is both a person and materials of criminal and civil cases.

Forensic psychiatric examination has its own theoretical basis and operates with methods and principles that differ from forensic medical examination and, therefore, can be distinguished as a separate class of forensic examination with the corresponding classification and specialization of experts.

At the present stage of scientific development, psychophysiological research is becoming increasingly widespread.

As a new direction, psychophysiology received its official status in May 1982, when the 1st International Congress of Psychophysiologists was held in Montreal.

The International Organization of Psychophysiology (IOP) was created there, and the beginning of international congresses on psychophysiology was laid.

The content of the subject of psychophysiology as an independent scientific direction was accepted to be the study of physiological mechanisms of mental processes and states.

However, the study of microreactions turned out to be quite promising scientific research.

The most profound development was received by psychophysiological research with the involvement of methods of recording neural activity not only in animals, but also in humans, which confirmed the prediction of H. Delgodo and E.N. Sokolov about the prospects for the development of psychophysiology3.

Today, the range of research by psychophysiologists includes such problems as neural mechanisms of sensations, perception, memory and learning, motivations and emotions, thinking and speech, consciousness, behavior, mental activity, as well as interhemispheric relationships, diagnostics and mechanisms of functional states, psychophysiology of individual differences, principles of coding and processing of information in the nervous system, etc.

In 1992 — 1993, the term «forensic psychophysiology» appeared in American specialized literature, which was associated with the inclusion of the psychophysiological method of «lie detection» in legal terminology.

A specialist who has mastered the psychophysiological method of lie detection received the name of a forensic psychophysiologist.

Speaking of psychophysiology, American scientists understand it as «a science that studies the effect of stimuli on one or more human sense organs in order to determine and evaluate the mental effect of these stimuli by monitoring selected physiological functions»4.

Explaining the content of the new scientific discipline, one of the leading American polygraph examiners — V. Yanki noted that it is called upon «to provide researchers and practitioners with the basics of theoretical and applied psychological, physiological and psychophysiological knowledge for understanding and practical application of the psychophysiological method of lie detection», and the use of the term (forensic) in the name of the discipline outlines the boundaries of that part of psychophysiology that comes into contact with the legal system — processes, phenomena and applications that are an integral functional part of psychophysiological lie detection.

The attribution of a wide range of issues related to the theory and practice of applying this psychophysiological method to forensic psychophysiology, as well as the naming of a specialist in polygraph tests as a forensic psychophysiologist are highly controversial.

Many polygraph examiners hold this opinion.

Thus, Yu. I. Kholodny believes that it is incorrect to call the method and the specialist who carries it out judicial for a number of reasons6.

Firstly, at present, the results of polygraph tests are not often used for consideration during court hearings.

Secondly, the use of polygraph tests for the purpose of crime prevention and prevention has nothing to do with judicial practice.

Another promising method based on psychophysiological reactions, which can be widely used in forensic psychophysiology, is the method of computer psychosemantic analysis (CPSA).

According to D.B. Berdnikov, this method has significant advantages over other methods of obtaining information (active questioning, polygraphic lie detection, pharmacological disinhibition), which are as follows:

1) due to the unconsciousness of test stimuli, it is possible to overcome the censorship of the subject's consciousness and exclude falsification of results;

2) in the speed of application — 3-12 minutes per procedure, the absence of the use of a large number of sensors;

3) in the ability to identify not only consciously hidden, but also unconscious subjectively significant information;

4) in relation to the study of some mental phenomena, this is an objective measuring instrument7

S. S. Shipshin, examining the system of forensic psychophysiological examination, singles out psychophysiological examination as a type and suggests limiting ourselves to two types of psychophysiological examination: engineering-psychophysiological examination of a driver — participant in a road traffic accident and examination of legally significant psychophysiological characteristics of a procedural person (accused, witness, victim).

T.N. Sekerazh9 shares this point of view, considering psychophysiological examination to be a type of examination in the class of psychological examinations.

In our opinion, psychophysiological examination as an independent class of examinations is currently in the development stage, and it is difficult to say what types of examinations can ultimately be identified as its independent substructures.

Research using a polygraph is perhaps the only type of psychophysiological examination today that can be considered sufficiently developed.

During the survey it was established that psychophysiological research using a polygraph as an independent type of examination is considered by 14.6% of the surveyed law enforcement officers of Russia; 4.3% of Ukraine; 30.8% of experts from Russia; 25% of experts from Ukraine; 36.2% of polygraph examiners from Russia.

In addition, 23.8% and 24% of survey participants working in law enforcement agencies in Russia and Ukraine; 35.7% and 17.1% of experts and 24.3% of polygraph examiners from other countries noted that in practice the polygraph can be used in the form of a comprehensive psychological and psychophysiological examination10.

Also, in the American forensic system, a polygraph test is considered one of the types of examination.

Although, paradoxically, in a country with a high scientific status and experience in the applied application of the method, a weak development of the natural scientific foundations of the psychophysiological method of lie detection is noted.

Nevertheless, the allocation by American specialists of forensic psychophysiology as an independent section of forensic psychology served the application of not only the psychophysiological method of «lie detection», but also other methods in psychophysiology and the possibility of their use in legal practice.

Thus, scientific knowledge of forensic psychophysiology is recognized to exist, is enriched and is a source of development of forensic psychophysiological examination.

Moreover, there is a need to develop and define this class of expertise, to distinguish genera, types, justification of methods and expert specialization.

The place and role of forensic psychological expertise in the system of forensic examinations and the branch of knowledge that studies it has been considered by us earlier11.

At present, there is another point of view, expressed by S.S. Shipshin at the Academic Council of the Russian Federal Center for Forensic Expertise of the Ministry of Justice of Russia, which is that forensic psychological expertise, along with psychophysiological expertise, is generic in a separate class of «psychological and psychophysiological expertise».

According to the order of the Ministry of Justice of Russia dated May 14, 2003, No. 114, the said expertise was included in the List of expert specialties for which the right to independently conduct forensic examinations is granted in forensic institutions of the Ministry of Justice of Russia.

In this case, the type of expertise is defined as “psychological”, and the expert specialty is called the study of human psychology and psychophysiology.

Substantiating his point of view, S.S. Shipshin refers to the fact that these expert studies are indeed united by a commonality of knowledge, sources of theoretical and methodological foundations and objects studied on the basis of this knowledge.

In his opinion, such an approach is also justified by the fact that the subject and object of forensic psychophysiological examination are related to the subject and object of forensic handwriting and authorship (since handwriting and text of a document are products of the subject's mental activity);

graphic and phonographic examination (since oral and written speech are also products of the subject's mental activity, his emotional state);

forensic autotechnical examination (since the prevention or commission of an accident, in addition to the technical, is determined by the psychological ability of the subject, which is derived from his psychophysiological, psychological characteristics, as well as his mental state).

One can only partially agree with S.S. Shipshin. Yes, indeed, psychophysiology is a science about the mechanisms of mental processes and states, and it is impossible to correctly understand and describe mental processes, states and properties without knowing the mechanisms of their occurrence. But at the same time, there are grounds to object to the following.

Firstly,psychophysiology has recently developed into a discipline that integrates the latest achievements of biological sciences, mathematics and physics in its arsenal.

Modern psychophysiology can rightfully be defined as a new science — psychobiology.

The unification of these sciences within the framework of psychophysiology leads to the fact that specialists studying certain mental processes often do not find mutual understanding, since they use different methods in their research.

Thus, the language of neurogenetics and neurophysiology is unfamiliar to a specialist who uses methods of analyzing evoked potentials13.

Secondly,in modern psychophysiology, conceptually designed branches are distinguished: the psychophysiological direction founded by E.N. Sokolov, — the essence of the searches, which are reflected in the logic of the triumvirate «man — neuron — model»;

the psychophysiological school of P.K. Anokhin and V.B. Shvyrkov, based on the theory of physiological systems;

neurogenetic, psychophysiological school, which has grown into an independent, productive and bright branch from the psychology of individual differences and is being developed in the research of I.V. Ravich-Shcherbo and her colleagues;

research into the mechanisms of memory, functional states of perception, emotions and thinking (N.I. Danilova, 1992; Hogobel, 1990).

Within the framework of these areas, it is possible to develop certain types of forensic psychophysiological research14.

Thirdly,The theoretical and methodological apparatus of psychophysiology allows us to describe the structure and dynamics of the subjective world of a person based on objective indicators using the following methods: electroencephalography, magnetoencephalography, tomographic methods of brain research, etc.

The use of these methods requires broad specialized knowledge and multidisciplinary specialization, which creates certain difficulties in the professional training of an expert psychologist.

Because to study these methods and the mechanism of their application, knowledge is needed not only in psychology, but also, mainly, in other scientific disciplines that study the work of the brain (in neurophysiology, neurochemistry, psychophysiology, etc.), or unified neuroscience.

Fourthly, the principles of psychophysiological research, in contrast to psychological research, have a certain specificity and differ significantly, which also implies the choice of different approaches to forensic psychological and forensic psychophysiological research15.

Fifthly,At present, applied psychophysiological research is mainly associated with the use of a polygraph, which clearly narrows the content of psychophysiological research in forensic practice and the possibilities of forensic psychophysiological examinations.

Sixthly, the problem of specialization and advanced training of expert psychologists and expert psychophysiologists arises — at present, the personnel aspect of this problem is considered exclusively within the framework of the polygraph problem.

And a survey using a polygraph is defined as a forensic method.

At the same time, it is obvious that the psychophysiological method of “lie detection” using a polygraph must be used from the position of the categorical apparatus of not only forensic science, but also forensic psychophysiology, although at present it has minimal scientific validity.

An expert psychophysiologist, just like an expert polygraph examiner, has to act simultaneously in two systems: “person-person” and “person-technical device”, which implies certain difficulties in creating a high-quality training system for these specialists.

Based on the above and relying on the theory of scientific knowledge and the practice of solving expert problems, in order to integrate knowledge within the framework of psychophysiology, it seems reasonable to single out forensic psychophysiological examination as an independent class, which will allow: to systematize the conceptual apparatus of forensic psychophysiological examination taking into account the existing theoretical base; to develop a classification of forensic psychophysiological examination as a class; to expand the scope of use of this class of examination.

The logic of the above reasoning confirms that an important step towards the further development of forensic examination is the identification of classes within this scientific direction and the definition of common tasks for the study and justification of each class.

Thus, it is advisable to single out the following classes of forensic examination:

1. class «forensic medical examination»;
2. class «forensic psychiatric examination»;
3. class «forensic psychological and forensic pathopsychological examination»;
4. class «forensic psychophysiological examination».

In the class forensic psychophysiological examination — forensic psychophysiological examination using a polygraph will be one of the types of examinations.

Taking into account the analysis of the practice and theory of forensic examination, the following tasks seem relevant for in-depth development:

• further systematization of the conceptual apparatus of this class based on objective processes and integration of knowledge;

• development of a classification of this class in accordance with the provisions of science and the demands of practice;

• legislative definition of expert specialties.

The proposed classification is not final, since the proposed examinations are at different stages of formation.

Literature.

1 Fundamentals of forensic examination. Part 1. General theory. Moscow: RFCSE under the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, 1997. Page 166.

2 Mokhov A.A. Forensic medical examination in civil proceedings. Abstract of Cand. Sci. (Law) Dissertation. Volgograd, 2000. Page 147.

3 Sokolov E.N. Physiology of higher nervous activity — development prospects //Journal of higher nervous activity. 1986. Vol. 36. Issue 2. Pages 252 — 264.

4 Kholodny Yu.I. Use of the polygraph in the prevention, detection and investigation of crimes (genesis and legal aspects): Monograph. Moscow: World of Security, 2001. Page 78.

5 Kholodny Yu.I. Use of the polygraph in the prevention, detection and investigation of crimes (genesis and legal aspects): Monograph. Moscow: World of Security, 2001. Page 79.

6 Kholodny Yu.I. Ibid. Page 79.

7 Berdnikov D.B. Prospects for the Development of Psychophysiological Research in Forensic Science //Collection: Current Issues in the Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. International Conference «East & West: Partnership in Forensic Science». N. Novgorod, 2004. pp. 234 — 236.

8 Shipshin S.S. A New Look at the System of Forensic Physiopsychological Expertise //Collection: Current Issues in the Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. International Conference «East & West: Partnership in Forensic Science». N. Novgorod, 2004. pp. 222 — 225.

9 Sekerazh T.N. Problems of classification of forensic physiopsychological examination //Collection: Actual problems of theory and practice of forensic examination. International conference «East — West: Partnership in forensic examination». N. Novgorod, 2004. Pp. 230 — 233.

10 Komissarova Ya.V, Stepanov V.V. Features of non-verbal communication during crime investigation. Moscow: Yurlitinform, 2004. Pp. 70-71.

11 Kholopova E.N. Modern directions and tendencies in development of theory and practice of forensic examination //Collection. «Actual problems of theory and practice of criminal proceedings and forensic science». Part 3: Issues of theory and practice of forensic examination. M.: Academy of Management of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2004.

12 Shipshin S.S. On the theoretical issues of psychophysiological examination (Problem note). 2001.

13 Modern Psychology: Reference Guide. M.: Infra-M, 1999. P. 19.

14 Danilova N.N. Psychophysiology: Textbook for universities. M.: Aspect-Press, 2001. P. 9 — 13.

15 Danilova N.N. Psychophysiology: Textbook for universities. M.: Aspect-Press, 2001. P. 9 — 13.