In an attempt to answer a query I had on whether polygraph test results were confidential between the examinee and tester within prisons in the UK, I came across this.
Polygraph (lie detector) testing has been around for well over a hundred years with William Marston lobbying for its use in Court as far back as the 1930’s. The polygraph detects physiological changes in heart rate, breathing and skin conductivity during the test period. These signs are indicative of a person’s response when knowingly being deceptive.
However, in recent years the technology involved has become increasingly advanced particularly with the use of computerized instruments. Determining an exact figure for accuracy varies to some extent: DrLouis Rovner a noted scientist and polygraph expert in Los Angeles, California states an accuracy rate as high as 96%. Other trials using the latest technology in real life double blind studies have reported an accuracy of up to 97.5% and according to the American Polygraph Association recent research reveals the accuracy is close to 100%.
Although polygraph testing is not currently used in criminal investigations in the UK, polygraphy is used in many countries worldwide with the United States being the prime users of this technology. Federal government agencies such as the FBI and the CIA use the polygraph as an interrogation tool for use with criminal suspects or to screen candidates for public sector employment.
There is some controversy regarding the use of countermeasures to pass the polygraph test. Dr. Rovner states that “almost no human being can beat a polygraph test”. Lie detection technology has become so sophisticated that the polygraph itself is able to detect a person’s efforts to try to beat it.
Aware of these technological developments, Jeremy Bamber openly volunteered to undergo a Polygraph Test at Full Sutton Prison in 2007. Terance Mullins from UK Polygraph Services and member of the British Polygraph Association conducted a detailed test lasting one-hundred minutes, concluding that NDI (no deception indicated) should be recorded. Mullins has stated that he is willing to stand by his test and results, and is willing to offer this evidence in support of Jeremy’s case for appeal.
Please see links at bottom of article for further information.
Jeremy firmly believes that in taking the polygraph test “the innocent person has no fear, as there is nothing to be exposed”, thus strengthening their case. He also states that “the guilty will resist doing so because of the real possibility of being exposed”.
In the rare occurrence of a false positive result, a knowledgeable and experienced examiner would be able to detect if the client were telling the truth, in which case the test would be discontinued. Regardless of the outcome, the test is completely confidential and is not admissible in a Court of Law.
Polygraph tests are now mandatorily used by the probation service in the UK: for example, where the prisoner might, upon release, be subject to stringent license conditions. The polygraph would then monitor whether they were engaging in precarious behaviour. Over 90% of Probation Officers rated the polygraph as being “very useful”.
Jeremy proposes the Polygraph Test be used as criteria for application to the CCRC. (Although he carefully states that failing the test is not necessarily a bar to having a CCRC review, since some medical conditions ie. mental illness, delusional disorder may cause one to fail the test. In these specific cases it would be necessary to prove why one had failed.)
Having read journalist Bob Woffinden’s recent article in the Guardian regarding the failing of the CCRC, I would strongly sanction Jeremy’s proposals regarding the use of polygraph testing.
Having been set up initially to investigate major miscarriages of justice, in particular, murder cases, the CCRC now deals with such trivial matters ranging from dishonestly obtaining a telecommunication service to keeping a disorderly house. Woffinden states “no one should pretend that such low-level injustices precipitated the creation of the CCRC”. In recent years the CCRC has successfully referred an average of just one major case per year to the Appeal Court although many cases are drawn out for longer. The CCRC took five years to deal with the case of Patrick Nolan and seven years to refer Andrew Adams. Jeremy’s legal team made his current submission to the CCRC in 2004: he is still awaiting a decision!
Woffinden states that the CCRC are taking far too long to evaluate cases and then it is not referring the cases it should.
If Jeremy’s proposals were implemented it may well help to siphon out those who apply to the CCRC as a matter of course as well as the minor cases and those serving relatively short tariffs. This would ease the sheer number of cases that the CCRC have to deal with, thus enabling them to deal with the major cases more efficiently hence, resulting in a drastic cut to the lengthy route to appeal.
If polygraph reform is actioned at some future date it will not redress the fact that Jeremy and others like him have served unnecessarily long sentences for crimes they did not commit.
Link to result of Jeremy’s polygraph test.
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B5DLsf0UggyWYWJhNzAyZTktMjBlYi00YzY4LTk0ZDAtMjc2OGIzMjM3MDIx&hl=en&authkey=CLLwvvUC <https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B5DLsf0UggyWYWJhNzAyZTktMjBlYi00YzY4LTk0ZDAtMjc2OGIzMjM3MDIx&hl=en&authkey=CLLwvvUC>
Link to letter to Jeremy from Terrance Mullins.
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B5DLsf0UggyWMTk1NTVhZGQtMmU5NS00MzRlLTg0MWYtN2VkYzgwMjkyNDYw&hl=en&authkey=CMvO9eoO <https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B5DLsf0UggyWMTk1NTVhZGQtMmU5NS00MzRlLTg0MWYtN2VkYzgwMjkyNDYw&hl=en&authkey=CMvO9eoO>
http://jeremybamber.tumblr.com/post/2566586176/polygraph-testing
