Polygraph Research Paper

Running head: Polygraph 1

THE POLYGRAPH MACHINE: Tried and True or Witch?s Brew

Sharon Robinson

Bailiff, Duval County Sheriff?s Office

Florida Gulf Coast University

Polygraph 2

First and foremost, I state my uncompromising objection to the use of the polygraph by the Florida Court System. The history of the polygraph initially referred to as a lie detector. In 1914 and 1915 Vittori Benussi and William Morston produced a device that was supposedly capable of detecting if a person was being deceptive when responding to a question. Later, in 1921, a device capable of linking blood pressure and breathing, pulse rate, and exhalation with deception was developed. In 1926 Leonard Keeler developed the first polygraph machine,

is an allusion to Masonic rites and to the trials administered to those aspiring to the ?Third Degree? level.? ?The polygraph interrogation is considered the ?fourth degree- without incorporation of sweat boxes or bludgeoning supposedly incorporated to reduce more violent means used to coerce confessions. Every lie detector involves deception, or attempted deception, of the suspect. Interrogators want the suspect to believe that they know more than they do, and that if he simply confessed to the crime they could make things easier for him. A story in the New York Times printed the story of Matthew

(See illustration 1). A groundbreaking decision regarding the admissibility of polygraphs in court cases can be found in Frye v. U.S. Mr. Frye was convicted of second-degree murder. Mr. Frye appealed his conviction. When Frye attempted to bring in an expert witness to testify that he had taken a deception test, and to relay to the court the results of the test, the court held the professional testimony inadmissible. The court reasoned that ?the evidence did not meet the requirement that the evidence be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs,? thus the test results were summarily excluded by the Court.? ?The court held that without an established place in science, the test was still in the blurred realm between experimental science and demonstrated science, and therefore inadmissible.? ?In the court?s words, as the deception test was not ?sufficiently established?,? the testimony related to it is inadmissible.?