The Times reporting proposal to lie detect men convicted of the most serious DV. Share token

[indieshuffle]

Ministers writing The Domestic Abuse Bill is reported as seeking powers to polygraph the men who have convicted and served more than 12 months to help assess their risk to former partners once they are released on licence eg to see if contact has been made.

Interestingly says a trial on sex offenders in 2009-11 was helpful.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/men-who-abuse-partners-could-face-lie-detector-0fdjwls39?shareToken=0339e8808e2639caefbd1f7f31ed83a6

Not flawless, but nothing is, and sounds like it could be a good thing overall.

These tests measure stress rather than honesty. One person might have no conscience, be relaxed about what they've done, and pass the test. Another may be relaxed because they "know they have nothing to hide". The next may feel guilt at what they've done, and fail the test. But a significant minority will be very stressed about the test in case it wrongly incriminates them, and will fail the test even though they're innocent.

Polygraphs are complete pseudoscience though. You might as well cast their horoscopes.

But what would be the point? They don’t accurately identify lies.

Either polygraph are effective tools or they're not. As I understand it most evidence suggests they are not.

It will depend on the skill of the interviewer and them asking the right questions, and no doubt could also be used as a tick box to say well we tested them, we did our best when a man re-offends, but perhaps it will help a bit.

Maybe it can help to back up situations where the probation officer feels the man is lying but cannot be sure.

If used with the right intentions and as part of the number of risk assessment measures, not as a short cut, maybe it will be helpful.

A similar trial was conducted with sex offenders between 2009 and 2011. It found that offenders were more likely to disclose information and the tests were made compulsory for all serious offenders on their release from prison.
I'm not sure I entirely understand. Is the arguement that men will actually disclose more details when questioned? Am not sure -will have to consider all angles.

Polygraphs are easily gamed.
There are surely better ways than this?

What Bowlofbabelfish said.

The main outcome of using a polygraph is to distinguish between nervous and confident people and between good and bad liars.

Polygraphs don’t work. It’s not just that they fail to detect lies, it’s also that they produce a high percentage of false positives. If you put the victim of DV under one they’d probably be stressed out enough to fail too.

It's really easy to train people to pass a polygraph. Most of the time, people in the USA are asked to take a polygraph because of the idea that "only a guilty person would refuse". It's just bollocks.

Some coercive controllers can make their victims believe lies about themselves, I bet a lot of that type would fool a polygraph.

I'm really shocked polygraph testing is being talked about - it has been comprehensively debunked, and my concern is that if this is seen as a legitimate use, how long until it is used as evidence in convictions?