Prof traces history, use of lie detectors

Showing that even an expert on lie detection is sick of the impeachment trials, Ken Adler refused to talk about the Clinton situation yesterday, steering away from a discussion on whether or not the president lied to the grand jury. Instead, Adler, a professor at Northwestern University, spoke about the polygraph and its place in American history to around 35 professors and graduate students from the History and Sociology of Science Department yesterday afternoon. The speech, entitled The Technology of Truth: The American Polygraph, the Republic of Expertise, focused on the emergence and nature of the polygraph and its role in evidence collection and the judicial process. "Many of the same forensic sciences used today [in our legal system] can be seen throughout history," Adler said. The modern lie detector was developed by John Larson and Leonarde Keeler at the University of California at Berkely in the 1920s. The machine eventually came to be used by both industry and government as a means of determining the loyalty of individuals and maintained a great deal of popularity until the 1960s, according to Adler. "Jurists banned the lie detector in court precisely because of the way it thrived in the marketplace," Adler said. In the United States, judges have the discretion to choose whether or not to allow the results of lie detector tests to be admitted as evidence. Few polygraph test results are admitted in court because they infringe upon the right to free and private thought, as well as the Fifth Amendment right to avoid self incrimination, Adler said. The lie detector is currently under a great deal of scientific scrutiny. Researcher David Lykken claims that the polygraph correctly identifies people telling the truth only 53 percent of the time -- which is little better than random guessing, according to Adler. Another critic of the polygraph claims that 80 percent of those who administer the test are unqualified, Adler said. In principle, the lie detector works by monitoring an individual's temperature, blood pressure and other factors. These conditions become more pronounced when someone tells a lie. But according to Adler, this system is far from perfect. Accusatory or personal questions often elicit physiological responses that mimic the signs of a lie. When the polygrapher examines the resulting data, he often misinterprets these signs as indications of lying. Although the lie detector test is administered one to two million times a year, most polygraphers admit that the test is extremely unreliable and its main function is to initiate confessions, according to Adler. Adler said this dubious means of assessing truth grew out of a general trend in the United States in the mid-20th century to use science as a way to standardize the world. The polygraph offered Americans a seemingly objective way to bring about justice. Larson and Keeler developed the polygraph during the same era the SAT and IQ tests were developed, according to Alder. "Our Anglo-American system is a hybridization of the republic of expertise and democracy," Adler said.