The apparent utility of the polygraph to work both as a treatment and supervision aid and as a deterrent for future offending is cited as ample justification for its use. This article examines these claims to demonstrate that although post-conviction polygraph testing may have some utility by increasing disclosures of prior offending and, within specific cases, admissions of treatment and supervision violations, the limited evidence accumulated thus far does not adequately ascertain its accuracy nor support its efficacy or effectiveness as a deterrent. The article concludes with recommendations for creating a real evidentiary base beyond polygraph testing’s apparent ability to elicit more information from offenders to evidence that can determine whether it is efficacious and effective in reducing criminality and deviance.
AbramsS.OgardE. (1986). Polygraph surveillance of probationers. Polygraph, 15, 174-182.
2.
AbramsS.SimmonsG. (2000). Post-conviction polygraph testing: Then and now. Polygraph, 29, 63-68.
3.
AhlmeyerS.HeilP.McKeeB.EnglishK. (2000). Impact of polygraph on admissions of victims and offenses in adult sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 12, 123-138.
4.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
5.
AustinJ. (2010). Reducing America’s correctional populations: A strategic plan. Justice Research and Policy, 12, 9-40.
6.
BlumsteinA.CohenJ.DasS.MoitraS. D. (1988). Specialization and seriousness during adult criminal careers. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 4, 303-345.
7.
BrameR.MulveyE. P.PiqueroA. R. (2001). On the development of different kinds of criminal activity. Sociological Methods and Research, 29, 319-341.
8.
BranamanT. F.GallagherS. N. (2005). Polygraph testing in sex offender treatment: A review of limitations. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 23, 45-64.
9.
BuschmanJ.BogaertsS.FoulgerS.WilcoxD.SosnowskiD.CushmanB. (2010). Sexual history disclosure polygraph examinations with cybercrime offences: A first Dutch explorative study. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 395-411.
10.
California Coalition on Sexual Offending. (2004). Position paper for clinical polygraph examinations in sex offender treatment. Stockton, CA: Author.
11.
CohenJ. (1986). Research on criminal careers: Individual frequency rates and offense seriousness. In BlumsteinA.CohenJ.RothJ. A.VisherC. (Eds.), Criminal careers and “career criminals” (pp. 292-418). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
12.
CrosseT. P.SaxeL. (1992). A critique of the validity of polygraph testing in child sexual abuse cases. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 1, 19-33.
13.
CrosseT. P.SaxeL. (2001). Polygraph testing and sexual abuse: The lure of the Magic Lasso. Child Maltreatment, 6, 195-206.
14.
CullenF. T.GendreauP. (2001). From nothing works to what works: Changing professional ideology in the 21st century. The Prison Journal, 81, 313-338.
15.
DeLisiM. (2005). Career criminals in society. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
16.
EdsonC. F. (1991). Sex offender treatment. Jackson County, OR: Department of Corrections.
17.
EmerickR. L.DuttonW.A. (1993). The effect of the polygraph on the self-report of adolescent sex offenders: Implementation for risk assessment. Annals of Sex Research, 6, 83-103.
18.
EnglishK.JonesL.Pasini-HillD.PatrickD.Cooley-TowellS. (2000). The value of polygraph testing in sex offender management (Research report submitted to the National Institute of Justice, No. D97LBVX0034). Denver: Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice, Office of Research and Statistics.
19.
FaigmanD. L.FienbergS. E.SternP. C. (2003). The limits of the polygraph. Issues in Science and Technology, 20, 40-48.
20.
FienbergS. E.SternP. C. (2005). In search of the Magic Lasso: The truth about the polygraph. Statistical Science, 20, 249-260.
21.
FordC. V. (1996). Lies! Lies! Lies! The psychology of deceit. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
22.
GannonT. A. (2006). Increasing honest responding on cognitive distortions in child molesters: The bogus pipeline procedure. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1-18.
23.
GannonT. A.BeechA. R.WardT. (2008). Does the polygraph lead to better risk prediction for sexual offenders?Aggression & Violent Behavior, 13, 29-44.
24.
GannonT. A.KeownK.PolaschekD. L. L. (2007). Increasing honest responding on cognitive distortions in child molesters: The bogus pipeline revisited. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 5-22.
25.
GastwirthJ. L. (1987). The statistical precision of medical screening devices: Application to polygraph and AIDS antibodies test data. Statistical Science, 2, 213-222.
26.
GendreauP. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In HarlandA. T. (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
27.
GendreauP. (2000). 1998 Margaret Mead Award address: Rational policies for reforming offenders. In McMahonM. (Ed.), Assessment to assistance: programs for women in community corrections (pp. 329-338). Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.
28.
GendreauP.GogginC.CullenF. T.PaparozziM. (2002). The common sense revolution and correctional policy. In McGuireJ. (Ed.), Offender rehabilitation & treatment: Effective programs & policies to reduce re-offending (pp. 360-386). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
29.
GendreauP.GogginC.FrenchS.SmithP. (2006). Practicing psychology in correctional settings: “What works” In reducing criminal behavior. In HessA. K.WeinerI. B. (Eds.), The handbook of forensic psychology (3rd ed., pp. 722-750). New York, NY: Wiley.
30.
GendreauP.SmithP.FrenchS. (2006). The theory of effective correctional intervention: Empirical status & future direction. In CullenF. T.WrightJ. P.BlevinsR. (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory—advances in criminological theory (pp. 419-446). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
31.
GendreauP.SmithP.ThériaultY. L. (2009). Chaos theory and correctional treatment: Common sense, correctional quackery, and the Law of Fartcatchers. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25, 384-396.
32.
GrubinD. (2005). Lie detection and the polygraph: A historical review. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 16, 357-369.
33.
GrubinD. (2008).The case for polygraph testing of sex offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 177-189.
34.
GrubinD. (2010). A trial of voluntary polygraphy testing in 10 English probation areas. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 266-278.
35.
GrubinD.MadsenL. (2006). Accuracy and utility of post-conviction polygraph testing of sex offenders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 188, 479-483.
36.
HeilP.AhlmeyerS.SimonsD. (2003). Crossover sexual offences. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 15, 221-236.
37.
HeilP.EnglishK. (2009). Sex offender polygraph testing in the United States: Trends and controversies. In WilcoxD. T. (Ed.), The use of the polygraph in assessing, treating, and supervising sex offenders: A practitioner’s guide. NY: Wiley (pp. 181-216).
38.
HindmanJ.PetersJ. M. (2001). Polygraph testing leads to better understanding adult and juvenile sex offenders. Federal Probation, 65, 8-15.
39.
HontsC. R.RaskinD. C.KircherJ. C. (1994). Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of polygraph tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 252-259.
40.
HuiS. L.WalterS. D. (1980). Estimating the error rates of diagnostic tests. Biometrics, 36, 167-171.
41.
HuizingaD.ElliottD. S. (1986). Reassessing the reliability and validity of self-report delinquency measures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2, 293-327.
42.
IaconoW. G. (2001). Forensic “lie detection”: Procedures without scientific basis. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 1, 75-86.
43.
IaconoW. G.LykkenD. T. (1997). The validity of the lie detector: Two surveys of scientific opinion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 426-433.
44.
JacobsB. A. (2010). Deterrence and deterrability. Criminology, 48, 417-441.
45.
JonesE. E.SigallH. (1971). The bogus pipeline: A new paradigm for measuring affect and attitude. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 349-364.
46.
Jones v. Virginia, No. 2637-02-1 (2003).
47.
Kansas v. Lumley, WL 218704 (1999).
48.
KokishR. (2003). The current role of post-conviction sex offender polygraph testing in sex offender treatment. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 12, 175-194.
49.
KokishR.LevensonJ. S.BlasingameG. D. (2005). Post-conviction sex offender polygraph examination: Client-reported perceptions of utility and accuracy. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 211-221.
50.
La FondJ. Q.WinickB .J. (2003). Sex offender reentry courts: A cost effective proposal for managing sex offender risk in the community. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, 98, 300-223.
51.
LatessaE.CullenF.GendreauP. (2002). Beyond correctional quackery: Professionalism and the possibility of effective treatment. Federal Probation, 66, 43-49.
52.
LevensonJ. S. (2009). Sex offender polygraph examination: An evidence-based case management tool for social workers. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 6, 361-375.
53.
LilienfeldS. O. (2007). Psychological treatments that cause harm. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 53-70.
54.
LipseyM. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4, 124-147.
55.
LoftusE. F. (2004).The devil in confessions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 1-2.
56.
LowencampC. T.LatessaE. J.SmithP. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter: The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 201-220.
57.
LykkenD. (1998). A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Perseus.
58.
MacKenzieD. L.(2000). Evidence-based corrections: Identifying what works. Crime and Delinquency, 46, 457-471.
59.
MacKenzieD. L. (2005). The importance of using scientific evidence to make decisions about correctional programming. Criminology & Public Policy, 4, 249-258.
60.
MacKenzieD. L. (2007) What works in corrections? Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Press.
61.
MaschkeG. W.ScalabriniG. J. (2005). The lie behind the lie detector (4th digital ed.). Available from http://antipolygraph.org
62.
MaxfieldM. G.BabbieE. R. (2011). Research methods for criminal justice and criminology (6th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
63.
McGrathR. JCummingG. FBurchardB. L.ZeoliS.EllerbyL. (2010). Current practices and emerging trends in sexual abuser management: The Safer Society 2009 North American Survey. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.
64.
McGrathR. J.CummingG. F.HokeS. E.Bonn-MillerM. O. (2007). Outcomes in a community sex offender treatment program: A comparison between polygraphed and matched non-polygraphed offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 381-393.
65.
MengesP. M. (2002). Ethical considerations of providing polygraph countermeasures to the public. Polygraph, 31, 254-262.
66.
Pennsylvania v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (1998).
67.
PiqueroA. (2000). Frequency, specialization, and violence in offending careers. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37, 392-418.
68.
PiqueroA. R.FarringtonD. P.BlumsteinA. (2007). Key issues in criminal career research: New analyses of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
69.
PolizziD. M.MacKenzieD. L.HickmanL. (1999). What works in adult sex offender treatment?: A review of prison- and non-prison-based treatment programs. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 357-374.
70.
PrattT. C.CullenF. T.BlevinsK. R.DaigleL.MadensenT. (2006). The empirical status of deterrence theory: A meta-analysis. In CullenF. T.WrightJ. P.BlevinsK. R. (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory—advances in criminological theory, (pp. 367-396) New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
71.
RebelloT.HodgesR. E.SmithJ. L. (1983). Short-term effects of various sugars on antinatriuresis and blood pressure changes in normotensive young men. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 38, 84-94.
72.
SaganC. (1996). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. New York, NY: Ballantine.
73.
SetoM. C. (2004). Pedophilia and sex offenses against children. Annual Review of Sex Research, 14, 321-361.
74.
State v. Travis, 125 Idaho 1, 867 P. 2d 234 (1994).
75.
StuartE. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science, 25, 1-21.
76.
United States v. Dotson, 324 F.3d 256, 261 12 (2003).
77.
United States v. Lee, 315 F.3d 206, 213 (2003).
78.
United States v. Saxena, 229 F.3d 1, 5 n.1 (2000).
79.
United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 309 (1998).
80.
United States v. Taylor, 338 F.3d 1280, 1284 n.2 (2003).
81.
United States v. York, 357 F.3d 14, 22 11 (2004).
82.
United States v. Zinn, 321 F.3d 1084, 1089-90 14 (2003).
83.
U.S. National Research Council Committee (2003). The polygraph and lie detection. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
84.
VacekP. M. (1985). The effect of conditional dependence on diagnostic tests. Biometrics, 41, 959-968.
85.
WaberR. L.ShivB.CarmonZ.ArielyD. (2008). Commercial features of placebo and therapeutic efficacy. Journal of the American Medical Association, 299, 1016-1017.
86.
WalkerS. (2006). Sense and nonsense about crime and drugs: A policy guide (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
87.
Willis v. Smith et al., C04-4012-MWB (Iowa). (2004).
88.
WilsonD. B.BatyeK.RiverosR. (2008). Testing and evaluation of the use of polygraphs to combat violence against women [Document No.: 222115]. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
89.
ZiliakS. T.McCloskeyD. N. (2008). The cult of statistical significance: How the standard error costs us jobs, justice, and lives. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
