Lie detector as a verifier

A major contributor to our research was one police officer from California. He seemed to be the true embodiment of a policeman: he knew all the codes and, having a lot of professional experience, was ideally suited for this job. In a conversation held before testing him on a lie detector, did not recognize any offenses; only after the detector managed to catch him in a lie, he confessed that he had committed more than 12 crimes during his service. Using an official car, he took out the stolen goods, threw drugs to innocent people in order to be able to arrest them, and had sex with the girls no more than sixteen years old in the company car. (Report of Sergeant US Mick, Inquirer, Lie Detector Operator, Salainas, California, Department of Justice (from the research on the use of a lie detector in police departments)) ^[120] .
Or another case. Fei was arrested in Toledo in 1978 on charges of murder in order to rob his acquaintance, who had time to die before stating that the robber was “very similar to Hummer” (Fei). For two months while the investigation was going on, Fei was not in custody. But in the end it was proved that he is the killer. The prosecutor offered to drop the charge if Fei successfully passed the lie detector test; but demanded that Fei admit the admissibility of the detector at the court in the opposite case. Fei agreed, failed the first trial, then the second, with another operator, was tried for aggravated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Two years later, the real killers were caught. They admitted that Fay was fully acquitted and immediately released. (The case is taken from the article by psychologist David Likken, where the detector test is called “pseudoscientific technology” ^[121] .)
Thanks to many similar examples of pro and contra, a very contradictory attitude to the lie detector is taking shape. Unfortunately, there is very little scientific evidence of its accuracy. Of the more than 4,000 articles and books devoted to this issue, less than 400 actually rely on scientific research, and only no more than 40 of them meet the minimum scientific standards ^[122] .
The dispute about the lie detector, still not yet resolved by scientific research, continues to remain hot and sharp. His most ardent supporters are those who observe the rule of law, intelligence services, people whose activities are associated with embezzlement and petty theft, as well as scientists involved in his research. Criticism also comes from civil rights activists, some lawyers, lawyers and other scientists involved in the study of these issues ^[123] .
I am not at all going to finally resolve this dispute here, but I just want to clarify the arguments of both parties. I am also not going to offer any recommendations for resolving or banning the detector, but I will only consider the nature of the arguments in order to help all those who have to make judgments on these issues, and show all the limited scientific evidence on this topic. But I address my reasoning not only to government officials, police officers, judges or prosecutors — today everyone is interested in a lie detector. In addition, it is not harmful to talk about exactly when it should be used and how best to deal with the results of tests performed on it. For to solve such delicate questions - who lies, and who speaks the truth - without the involvement of well-informed specialists it would be completely unwise. In addition, each may have their own, deeply personal reasons to learn more about this technical achievement. Today, in too many areas of activity, even at times not requiring special education or experience and far from governmental level, there is a tendency to test on the detector people whom no one has ever suspected of any crimes; Nevertheless, they are offered to undergo a detector test in order to decide whether to take them to work, whether they are worth upgrading, etc.
Many of my ideas discussed in the initial chapters of this book regarding the behavioral signs of deception also apply to lie detection with a detector. And here liars can also impersonate for fear of exposure due to remorse of conscience or due to the delight of cheating. Verifiers, on the other hand, can make Othello’s mistake or be trapped by Brokaw, that is, they can forget about individual differences in people's emotional behavior. Detector operators can also make the mistake of believing falsehood and the mistake of disbelieving the truth. In verification, most of the hazards and precautions are the same, regardless of whether a lie is detected by means of a detector or by behavioral signs. But there are new, more complex concepts that are best to be immediately identified. It:

• the ratio of accuracy and utility, that is, the knowledge of what benefit can be extracted from the readings of the detector in case of doubtful results;
• the need for truth, that is, accurate knowledge of lies and truth at the time of trial;
• the basic lie rate, that is, the need to assess the accuracy of the detector of a sufficient number of liars, for even very carefully selected results may be questionable if there are too few liars among the suspects;
• intimidation by inevitability, that is, the creation of the subject’s conviction that, thanks to the detector, a lie will certainly be detected, despite the possible errors of the procedure.