Editing Polygraph (section)

==Use==
Law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies in the United States are by far the biggest users of polygraph technology.  In the United States alone most federal law enforcement agencies either employ their own polygraph examiners or use the services of examiners employed in other agencies.<ref>{{cite web|author=Van Aperen, Steven|date=February 29, 2000 |url=http://www.nettrace.com.au/content/nta10001.htm|title=The polygraph as an investigative tool in criminal and private investigations|publisher=Net-Trace}}</ref> In 1978 [[Richard Helms]], the eighth Director of Central Intelligence, stated:

{{quote|We discovered there were some Eastern Europeans who could defeat the polygraph at any time. Americans are not very good at it, because we are raised to tell the truth and when we lie it is easy to tell we are lying. But we find a lot of Europeans and Asiatics can handle that polygraph without a blip, and you know they are lying and you have evidence that they are lying.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/Hscahelm.htm |title= Testimony of Richard Helms, Former Director of Central Intelligence, Former Ambassador to Iran, and Presently a Business Consultant in Washington, D.C., and Represented by Gregory B. Craig, of Williams & Connelly |website= mcadams.posc.mu.edu|date= 2001-01-29 |access-date= 2015-04-19|archivedate=July 1, 2002|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20020701034017/http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/Hscahelm.htm}}</ref>}}

Susan McCarthy of ''[[Salon (website)|Salon]]'' said in 2000 that "The polygraph is an American phenomenon, with limited use in a few countries, such as Canada, Israel and Japan."<ref>McCarthy, Susan. "[http://www.salon.com/2000/03/02/polygraph/ The truth about the polygraph]." ''[[Salon (website)|Salon]]''. March 2, 2000. Retrieved on July 5, 2013.</ref>

=== Armenia ===
In [[Armenia]], government administered polygraphs are legal, at least for use in national security investigations. The [[National Security Service (Armenia)|National Security Service]] (NSS), Armenia's primary intelligence service, requires polygraph examinations of all new applicants.<ref>{{Cite web |title=How to become an employee of the NSS |url=https://www.sns.am/en/pages/show/officer |access-date=2023-02-15 |website=www.sns.am |language=en}}</ref>

===Australia===
Polygraph evidence became inadmissible in New South Wales courts under the Lie Detectors Act 1983. Under the same act, it is also illegal to use polygraphs for the purpose of granting employment, insurance, financial accommodation, and several other purposes for which polygraphs may be used in other jurisdictions.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/act+62+1983+cd+0+N |title=''Lie Detectors Act 1983 (NSW)'' |publisher=Legislation.nsw.gov.au |access-date=2018-10-02 |archive-date=2018-10-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181003013735/https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/act+62+1983+cd+0+N |url-status=dead }}</ref>

===Canada===
In Canada, the 1987 decision of ''[[R v Béland]]'', the [[Supreme Court of Canada]] rejected the use of polygraph results as evidence in court, finding that they were inadmissible. The polygraph is still used as a tool in the investigation of criminal acts and sometimes employed in the screening of employees for government organizations.<ref>{{cite web|title=Pre-Employment Polygraph|website=[[Royal Canadian Mounted Police]]|url=http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/pre-employment-polygraph|date=2016-05-10|access-date=2018-04-17|archive-date=2021-02-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210226205643/http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/pre-employment-polygraph|url-status=dead}}</ref>

In the province of Ontario, the ''Employment Standards Act, 2000'' prohibits employers from asking or requiring employees to undergo a polygraph test.<ref>{{cite web|title=Lie Detector Tests |website= [[Ministry of Labour (Ontario)|Ontario Ministry of Labour]]|url=http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pubs/guide/liedetectors.php}}</ref><ref>{{cite canlaw |short title=Employment Standards Act, 2000 |abbr=S.O. |year=2000 |chapter=41 |part=XVI |wikilink=Employment Standards Act |link=https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/00e41 |linkloc=Ontario e-Laws}}</ref> Police services are permitted use polygraph tests as part of an investigation if the person consents.<ref>{{citation |title=Behavioural Assessment |website=Toronto Police Service |url=https://www.tps.ca/organizational-chart/specialized-operations-command/detective-operations/investigative-services/sex-crimes/behavioural-assessment/ |access-date=2025-05-04}}</ref>

===Europe===
In a majority of [[Europe]]an jurisdictions, polygraphs are generally considered to be unreliable for gathering evidence, and are usually not used by local law enforcement agencies. Polygraph testing is widely seen in Europe to violate [[Right to silence|the right to remain silent]].<ref name=Koppen2017>{{cite book|last1=Meijer|first1=Ewout H|last2=van Koppen|first2=Peter J|editor1-last=Canter|editor1-first=David|editor2-last=Žukauskiene|editor2-first=Rita|title=Psychology and Law : Bridging the Gap|date=2017|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1351907873|chapter=Chapter 3. Lie Detectors and the Law: The Use of the Polygraph in Europe|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4VJBDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT62}}</ref>{{rp|62ff}}

In [[England and Wales]] a polygraph test can be taken, but the results cannot be used in a court of law to prove a case.<ref>{{cite news |title=How widely are lie detectors used in the UK? |work=BBC News |date=29 June 2019 |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48775614 |publisher=British Broadcasting Corporation |access-date=28 August 2020}}</ref> However, the [[Offender Management Act 2007]] put in place an option to use polygraph tests to monitor serious sex offenders on parole in England and Wales;<ref>{{cite web | author-link= Wendy M. Grossman |last1=Grossman |first1=Wendy |title=Letter to America: The Black Box that Wouldn't Die |date=25 August 2020 |url=https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/letter-to-america-the-black-box-that-wouldnt-die/|magazine=[[Skeptical Inquirer]]|access-date=28 August 2020}}</ref> these tests became compulsory in 2014 for high risk sexual offenders currently on parole in England and Wales.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Bowcott |first1=Owen |title=Lie detector tests introduced to monitor released sex offenders |url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/08/lie-detector-polygraph-tests-introduced-monitor-sex-offenders |work=The Guardian |date=8 August 2014 |access-date=28 August 2020}}</ref>

The [[Supreme Court of Poland]] declared on January 29, 2015, that the use of polygraph in interrogation of suspects is forbidden by the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure. Its use might be allowed though if the suspect has been already accused of a crime and if the interrogated person consents of the use of a polygraph. Even then, the use of polygraph can never be used as a substitute of actual evidence.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2015-01-30|title=SN: tylko bez wariografu w przesłuchaniu I KZP 25/14|url=https://czasopismo.legeartis.org/2015/01/sad-najwyzszy-przeciwko-wariografowi/|access-date=2021-07-09|website=Czasopismo Lege Artis|language=pl-PL}}</ref>

As of 2017, the justice ministry and Supreme Court of both of the [[Netherlands]] and [[Germany]] had rejected use of polygraphs.<ref name=Koppen2017/>{{rp|62ff}}<ref>Bundesgerichtshof: Entscheidungen vom 17.12.1998, 1 StR 156/98, 1 StR 258/98</ref>

According to the 2017 book ''Psychology and Law: Bridging the Gap'' by psychologists [[David Canter]] and Rita Žukauskienė [[Belgium]] was the European country with the most prevalent use of polygraph testing by police, with about 300 polygraphs carried out each year in the course of police investigations. The results are not considered viable evidence in bench trials, but have been used in jury trials.<ref name=Koppen2017/>{{rp|62ff}}

In [[Lithuania]], "polygraphs have been in use since 1992",<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Saldžiūnas |first1=Vitas  |last2=Kovalenko |first2=Aleksandras |date=2008| title=The Event Knowledge Test (EKT) |url=https://repozytorium.ka.edu.pl/bitstream/handle/11315/24938/SALDZIUNAS_The_event_knowledge_test_2008.pdf?sequence=6&isAllowed=y |journal=European Polygraph |volume=1 |issue=3 |page=21}}</ref> with law enforcement utilizing the Event Knowledge Test (a "modification"<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Saldžiūnas |first1=Vitas  |last2=Kovalenko |first2=Aleksandras  |date=2015 |title=Selecting the Most Optimal Conditions for the Polygraph Examination |url=https://www.polygraph.pl/vol/2015-2/european-polygraph-2015-no2-saldziunas-kovalenka.pdf |journal=European Polygraph |volume=9 |issue=2 (32) |page=70 |doi=10.1515/ep-2015-0003|s2cid=148000927 }}</ref> of the Concealed Information Test) in criminal investigations.

===India===
In 2008, an Indian court adopted the [[Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature Profiling]] test as evidence to convict a woman who was accused of murdering her fiancé.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Gaudet | first1 = Lyn M | title = Brain Fingerprinting, Scientific Evidence, and "Daubert": A Cautionary Lesson from India | year = 2011 | url = https://www.jstor.org/stable/41307131 | journal = Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science & Technology | volume = 51 | issue = 3| pages = 293–318 | jstor = 41307131 }}</ref> It was the first time that the result of polygraph was used as evidence in court.<ref>{{cite news|last=Giridharadas |first=Anand|title = India's Novel Use of Brain Scans in Courts is Debated|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/world/asia/15brainscan.html|date=September 14, 2008|access-date = 2008-09-15}}</ref>
On May 5, 2010, [[The Supreme Court of India]] declared use of [[narcoanalysis]], [[brain mapping]] and polygraph tests on suspects as illegal and against the constitution if consent is not obtained and forced.<ref>{{cite news|title = No narcoanalysis test without consent, says SC|work=The Times of India|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/No-narcoanalysis-test-without-consent-says-SC/articleshow/5892348.cms|date=May 5, 2010|access-date = 2010-05-05|first1=Dhananjay|last1=Mahapatra}}</ref> Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution states: "No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://www.ijlmh.com/paper/right-against-self-incrimination-a-detailed-study-analysis-of-laws-prevailing-in-india/|title=Right against Self-Incrimination: A Detailed Study & Analysis of Laws Prevailing in India|author=Mittal, Akshat; Mishra, Aakarsh|journal=International Journal of Law Management and Humanities|date=2021|accessdate=December 21, 2021|archivedate=April 11, 2021|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20210411160316/https://www.ijlmh.com/paper/right-against-self-incrimination-a-detailed-study-analysis-of-laws-prevailing-in-india/}}</ref> Polygraph tests are still legal if the defendant requests one.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/polygraph-test-can-only-be-conducted-with-consent-of-the-accused-karnataka-hc-101615972372932.html|newspaper=[[Hindustan Times]]|author=Bose, Joydeep|title=Polygraph test can only be conducted with consent of the accused: Karnataka HC|date=March 17, 2021|accessdate=December 21, 2021|archivedate=March 17, 2021|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20210317101847/https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/polygraph-test-can-only-be-conducted-with-consent-of-the-accused-karnataka-hc-101615972372932.html}}</ref>

===Israel===
The [[Supreme Court of Israel]], in Civil Appeal 551/89 (''Menora Insurance v. Jacob Sdovnik''), ruled that the polygraph has not been recognized as a reliable device. In other decisions, polygraph results were ruled inadmissible in criminal trials. Polygraph results are only admissible in [[civil trial]]s if the person being tested agrees to it in advance.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/when-a-job-interview-turns-into-an-interrogation/|title=When a job interview turns into an interrogation|magazine=[[Times of Israel]]|author=Weinglass, Simona|date=March 6, 2016|accessdate=November 16, 2021|archivedate=March 7, 2016|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160307105056/https://www.timesofisrael.com/when-a-job-interview-turns-into-an-interrogation/}}</ref>

===Philippines===
The results of polygraph tests are inadmissible in court in the [[Philippines]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=Patag |first1=Kristine Joy |title=How forensic science is making a breakthrough in the Philippines |url=https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/03/27/1797029/how-forensic-science-making-breakthrough-philippines |access-date=9 September 2023 |work=The Philippine Star |date=27 May 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=G.R. Nos. 116196-97: Philippines vs. Pablo Adoviso |url=https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/37355 |website=Supreme Court E-Library |publisher=Supreme Court of the Philippines |access-date=9 September 2023}}</ref> The [[National Bureau of Investigation (Philippines)|National Bureau of Investigation]], however, uses polygraphs in aid of investigation.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Mayol |first1=Ador Vincent |last2=Bongcac |first2=Doris C. |last3=Pateña |first3=Patricia Andrea |title=Polygraph tests start for Ballesteros, center staff |url=https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/131345/polygraph-tests-start-for-ballesteros-center-staff |access-date=9 September 2023 |newspaper=Philippine Daily Inquirer |date=20 January 2012 |language=en}}</ref>

===United States===
[[File:DOD polygraph brochure.pdf|thumb|Brochure of the [[Defense Security Service]] (DSS) about polygraph testing]] [[File:Administration of Polygraph.jpg|thumb|Demonstrating the administration of the polygraph, the polygrapher making notes on the readouts. 1970s]]
[[File:NSApolygraphvideo.webm|thumb|"The Truth About the Polygraph" ([[National Security Agency]] (NSA)-produced video on the polygraph process)]]
In 2018, [[Wired (magazine)|''Wired'' magazine]] reported that an estimated 2.5 million polygraph tests were given each year in the United States, with the  majority administered to [[paramedics]], [[police officers]], [[firefighters]], and [[State police|state troopers]]. The average cost to administer the test is more than $700 and is part of a $2 billion industry.<ref name=wiredcost>{{cite news |last=Harris |first=Mark |url=https://www.wired.com/story/inside-polygraph-job-screening-black-mirror/ |title=The Lie Generator: Inside the Black Mirror World of Polygraph Job Screenings |magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] |date=October 1, 2018|access-date=October 2, 2018}}</ref>

{{As of|2007|alt=In 2007}}, polygraph testimony was admitted by stipulation in 19 states, and was subject to the discretion of the trial judge in federal court. The use of polygraph in court testimony remains controversial, although it is used extensively in post-conviction supervision, particularly of sex offenders. In ''[[Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.]]'' (1993),<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-102.ZS.html|title=Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).|publisher=[[Cornell University]]}}</ref> the old [[Frye standard]] was lifted and all forensic evidence, including polygraph, had to meet the new [[Daubert standard]] in which "underlying reasoning or methodology is scientifically valid and properly can be applied to the facts at issue." While polygraph tests are commonly used in police investigations in the US, no defendant or witness can be forced to undergo the test unless they are under the supervision of the courts.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Vance |first1=Stephen |title=Looking at the Law: An Updated Look at the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination in PostConviction Supervision |journal=Federal Probation |number=1 |volume=75 |url=https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/75_1_6_0.pdf}}</ref> In ''[[United States v. Scheffer]]'' (1998),<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1133.ZS.html|title=United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998)|publisher=[[Cornell University]]}}</ref> the US Supreme Court left it up to individual jurisdictions whether polygraph results could be admitted as evidence in court cases. Nevertheless, it is used extensively by [[prosecutor]]s, [[defense attorney]]s, and [[Policing in the United States|law enforcement agencies]]. In the states of [[Rhode Island]], [[Massachusetts]], [[Maryland]], [[New Jersey]], [[Oregon]], [[Delaware]] and [[Iowa]] it is illegal for any employer to order a polygraph either as conditions to gain employment, or if an employee has been suspected of wrongdoing.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Chapter149/Section19B|title=General Law – Part I, Title XXI, Chapter 149, Section 19B|website=malegislature.gov|access-date=2019-04-03}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2013/article-gle/section-3-702/|title=2013 Maryland Code :: Labor and Employment :: § 3-702 – Lie detector tests|website=Justia Law|language=en|access-date=2019-04-03}}</ref> The [[Employee Polygraph Protection Act]] of 1988 (EPPA) generally prevents employers from using lie detector tests, either for [[pre-employment screening]] or during the course of employment, with certain exemptions.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-eppa.htm|title=Compliance Assistance By Law – The Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA)|work=dol.gov|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050923221110/http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-eppa.htm|archive-date=2005-09-23}}</ref> As of 2013, about 70,000 job applicants are polygraphed by the federal government on an annual basis.<ref name=TaylorWootsonPolyFeds>Taylor, Marisa and Cleve R. Wootson Jr. "[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/16/199590/seeing-threats-feds-target-instructors.html#.UiIeOn9fuSp Seeing threats, feds target instructors of polygraph-beating methods]". ''[[The McClatchy Company|McClatchy Newspapers]]''. August 16, 2013. Retrieved August 31, 2013.</ref> In the United States, the State of [[New Mexico]] admits polygraph testing in front of [[Jury|juries]] under certain circumstances.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://swrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/New-Mexico-Rules-of-Evidence.pdf|title=New Mexico Rules of Evidence|website=New Mexico State University, Southwest Regional Training Centre|access-date=30 March 2019|archive-date=24 September 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200924184043/https://swrtc.nmsu.edu/files/2014/12/New-Mexico-Rules-of-Evidence.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>

In 2010 the NSA produced a video explaining its polygraph process.<ref name=Nageshvideo>{{cite news|author=Nagesh, Gautham|url=https://thehill.com/policy/technology/163354-nsa-video-tries-to-dispel-fear-about-polygraph-use-during-job-interviews/|title=NSA video tries to dispel fear about polygraph use during job interviews|work=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]|date=June 14, 2010|access-date=June 15, 2013}}</ref> The video, ten minutes long, is titled "The Truth About the Polygraph" and was posted to the website of the [[Defense Security Service]]. Jeff Stein of ''[[The Washington Post]]'' said that the video portrays "various applicants, or actors playing them—it’s not clear—describing everything bad they had heard about the test, the implication being that none of it is true."<ref name=Steinpolygraph>Stein, Jeff. "[https://archive.today/20130705215730/http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/06/facing_nsas_lie_detector_relax.html NSA lie detectors no sweat, video says]". ''[[The Washington Post]]''. June 14, 2010. Retrieved on July 5, 2013.</ref> AntiPolygraph.org argues that the NSA-produced video omits some information about the polygraph process; it produced a video responding to the NSA video.<ref name=Nageshvideo/> George Maschke, the founder of the website, accused the NSA polygraph video of being "[[Orwellian]]".<ref name=Steinpolygraph/>

The polygraph was invented in 1921 by [[John Augustus Larson]], a medical student at the [[University of California, Berkeley]] and a police officer of the [[Berkeley Police Department]] in Berkeley, California.<ref name=PolygraphFAQ>{{cite web|title=Polygraph/Lie Detector FAQs|publisher=International League of Polygraph Examiners|url=http://www.theilpe.com/faq_eng.html}}</ref> The polygraph was on the ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'' 2003 list of greatest inventions, described as inventions that "have had profound effects on human life for better or worse."<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|url=http://corporate.britannica.com/press/inventions.html |title=Encyclopædia Britannica's Great Inventions |encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica Almanac 2003, via Wayback Machine |access-date=5 August 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120519003729/http://corporate.britannica.com/press/inventions.html |archive-date=May 19, 2012}}</ref> In 2013, the US federal government had begun indicting individuals who stated that they were teaching methods on how to defeat a polygraph test.<ref name=TaylorWootsonPolyFeds/><ref>"[https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/owner-polygraph-indicted-allegedly-training-customers-lir-during-federally-administered "Owner of 'Polygraph.com' Indicted for Allegedly Training Customers to Lie During Federally Administered Polygraph Examinations"]. Department of Justice, November 14, 2014. Accessed March 19, 2018.</ref><ref>Taylor, Marisa. "[http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2021772209_lyingpenaltyxml.html Indiana man gets 8 months for lie-detector fraud]". ''[[The Seattle Times]]''. [[The McClatchy Company|McClatchy Newspapers]]. September 6, 2013. Retrieved on September 8, 2013.</ref> During one of those investigations, upwards of 30 federal agencies were involved in investigations of almost 5000 people who had various degrees of contact with those being prosecuted or who had purchased books or DVDs on the topic of beating polygraph tests.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/coach-who-taught-people-how-to-beat-lie-detectors-headed-to-prison/|title=Coach who taught people how to beat lie detectors headed to prison|work=Ars Technica|date=2013-09-09}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/14/208438/americans-personal-data-shared.html|title=Washington: Americans' personal data shared with CIA, IRS, others in security probe|work=McClatchy DC}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2021772209_lyingpenaltyxml.html|title=Indiana man gets 8 months for lie-detector fraud|work=The Seattle Times}}</ref>