This document discusses the history and development of the polygraph from its origins in the early 20th century to its current use for monitoring sex offenders. It traces the key individuals such as Marston, Munsterberg, and Wigmore who advanced the polygraph and debates its validity. The document argues that polygraphs should focus on diagnostic, single-issue exams rather than screening, multi-issue exams when used for sex offender monitoring and management given limitations in its ability to determine deception. Guidelines from groups like the American Polygraph Association aim to standardize techniques.

1. DECEPTION NOS The Polygraph During the Identification and Management of Sex Offenders KEN BLACKSTONE ACFP – 2010

2. There once was a doctor named Hugo, a lawyer named John and a doctor/lawyer named William. Hugo had a square peg, John had a round hole, and William started carving. The carving continues.

3. Ph.D. – 1885 M.D. – 1887 HARVARD PSYCHOLOGY LAB - 1902 “ON THE WITNESS STAND” – 1908 HUGO MUNSTERBERG (1863 – 1916)

4. EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY FALSE CONFESSIONS INTERROGATIONS PHYSIOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY ON THE WITNESS STAND

5. If “there is ever devised a psychological test for the valuation of witnesses, the law will run to meet it.” Illinois Law Review, 3, 399-445 (1909) Evidence § 875 (2d ed. 1923) JOHN HENRY WIGMORE (1863-1943)

6. Wigmore encouraged William Marston, who was then a graduate student at Harvard, to “build a device that would monitor the pulse of a witness and would display the activity to the jury.” Assistant Secretary of War Medal of Freedom Harvard Law degree – 1918 Harvard Ph.D. (Psychology) – 1921 Marston(1893-1947)

7. Marston, William, “The Physiological Possibilities of the Deception Test”, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1921. Trial courts in Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio admitted Marston tested witnesses while on the witness stand MARSTON DETECTION OF DECEPTION TEST

8. 1922 FRYE TEST

9. STENOGRAPHER BLOOD PRESSURE OPERATIVE CROSS EXAMINER STETHESCOPE AND BP CUFF DISCONTINUOUS MARSTON DETECTION OF DECEPTION TEST

10. MARSTON DETECTION OF DECEPTION TEST

11. Tobacco Smoke Enema

12. First “polygraph” was a copy machine – 1804 First multi-channel instrument - 1921 All electronic analog - 1974 Computer aided analog - 1988 Fully Computerized recording – 1992 CHANGES

13. PNEUMOGRAPH (2) THORACIC BREATHING ABDOMINAL BREATHING GALVANIC SKIN RESPONSE (GSR) ELECTRO DERMAL ACTIVITY POLYGRAPH INSTRUMENT

14. CARDIOGRAPH BLOOD VOLUME PULSE PHOTOPLETHYSMOGRAPH VASOCONSTRICTION POLYGRAPH INSTRUMENT

16. EXAMINATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONDUCTED USING A TESTING AND ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE THAT HAS BEEN VALIDATED THROUGH PUBLISHED AND REPLICATED RESEARCH. AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION

17. examinations are not permitted to materially deviate from the protocols of a validated testing technique. AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION

19. EVIDENTIARY – min 90% OVERALL ACCURACY INVESTIGATIVE – min 80% OVERALL ACCURACY Post Conviction Sex Offender Tests AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION

21. Examiners should use multi-issue polygraph techniques only in the absence of a known incident, known allegation, or a particular reason to suspect wrongful behavior. AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION

22. Examiners should use a successive hurdles approach to testing to maximize both the informational efficiency and sensitivity of multi-issue (mixed-issue) screening polygraphs and the diagnostic efficiency and specificity of event-specific single-issue exams. AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION

23. FAILURE TO DISCERN BETWEEN FORENSIC – DIAGNOSTIC POLYGRAPH UTILITY – NON-DIAGNOSTIC POLYGRAPH WHY HAS WIGMORE’S PROPHESY FAILED?

24. DIAGNOSIS DISCLOSURE FORENSIC EXAMINER:

26. IF MULTIPLE ISSUES EXIST

27. PRIORITIZE

28. SUCCESSIVE HURDLES APPROACH FORENSIC APPROACH

29. DISCLOSURE DIAGNOSIS UTILITY EXAMINER:

30. SCREENING @ MULTIPLE ISSUES CREATES UNCERTAINTY DISCLOSURES + CONFESSIONS UTILITY APPROACH

31. IGNORES RULE OF NO POSITIVE DIAGNOSIS (DI) ON A SCREENING TEST DIAGNOSIS FROM A NON-DIAGNOSTIC TEST UTILITY APPROACH

32. CAN MONITOR ACTIVITY CAN NOT DETERMINE VERACITY UTILITY EXAMINATIONS

33. MAN FOR ALL SEASONS - 1966

34. THE NORM FOR POST-ADJUDICATION TESTING OF SEX OFFENDERS LOVE OF DISCLOSURES FEAR OF FALSE NEGATIVES THE UTILITY APPROACH

35. SALEM WITCH TRIALS RED-SCARE CSA - SATANIC SCARE RICHARD A. GARDNER, M.D. THREE WAVES OF HYSTERIA

36. SEXUAL PSYCHOPATH LAWS FOCUS ON DOMESTIC SEX CRIMES – FEMINISM SVP LAWS LIEB,QUINSEY,BERLINER 1998 THREE WAVES OF SOCIAL POLICY

37. 1966 - ILLINOIS JUDGE ORDERED MONITORING OF SUBSTANCE ABUSERS. 1969 - WASHINGTON JUDGE ORDERED MONITORING OF SHOPLIFTERS. 1973 - OREGON JUDGE ORDERED MONITORING OF SEX OFFENDERS. POLYGRAPH SURVEILLANCE

38. SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT + MANAGEMENT NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY PRISON COMMUNITY – ALL STATES CIVIL COMMITMENT – 19 OF 20 STATES TODAY:

39. AT ITS BEST: STEP TOWARDS DIAGNOSIS AT ITS WORST: INSTRUMENTAL INTERROGATION UTILITY APPROACH

40. UTILITY OUTCOMES IMPACT SENTENCING HABEAS HEARINGS PAROLE HEARINGS REVOCATION HEARINGS

41. SVP TRIALS SVP LRA SVP RELEASE

42. ALL YOU HAVE ARE THE RELEVANT QUESTIONS AND THE OUTCOME “DECEPTION INDICATED”.

43. DID YOU TOUCH THAT BOY’S PENIS? DID YOU SHOW THAT BOY PORNOGRAPHY? DID YOU ENCOURAGE THAT BOY TO DRINK ALCOHOL? HAVE YOU EVER FANTASIZED ABOUT SEX WITH A MINOR? MULTIPLE ISSUE

44. DID YOU HAVE SEX WITH (ANOTHER INMATE) LAST WEEK? SYLT, HAVE YOU LIED TO YOUR THERAPIST ABOUT YOUR SEXUAL VICTIMS? SYLT, HAVE YOU LIED TO YOUR THERAPIST ABOUT YOUR SEXUAL FANTASIES?

45. ARGUE THAT POLYGRAPH DOESN’T WORK NEURALYZER - MEN IN BLACK OPTION 1:

46. BUT WILL IT ERASE IT FROM THE MIND OF EVALUATOR WHO HAS READ AND QUOTED THE POLYGRAPH REPORT? MAY KEEP IT OUT OF COURT

47. PROFESSIONAL APPROACH FIVE RULES OPTION 2

48. MULTIPLE ISSUE SCREENING TESTS ARE NOT USED TO MAKE A POSITIVE DIAGNOSIS (DI) RULE #1

49. USE SUCCESIVE HURDLES APPROACH RULE #2

50. RULE #3 ACCURACY INCREASES AS THE SCOPE OF THE RELEVANT ISSUE DECREASES GROUP INDIVIDUAL

51. RULE #4 ERRORS IN QUESTION FORMULATION ARE FATAL ERRORS

52. NEVER MIX KNOWN WITH UNKNOWN ISSUES RULE #5

53. 770-630-2485 2951 FLOWERS ROAD SOUTH SUITE 243 ATLANTA, GA 30341 www.blackstonepolygraph.com kenblackstone@gmail.com ANOTHER OPTION:

54. QUESTIONS?

55. AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION – www.polygraph.org Blackstone, K.E. (2008). Post-Conviction Polygraph in the Community and Court: Raising the Bar on PCSOT Examiners, The Forensic Examiner, 17 (3), 72-79 Krapohl, D. (2006). Validated Polygraph Techniques. Polygraph, 35(3), 149-155 Lieb, R., Quinsey, R., Berliner, L. (1998) Sexual Predators and Social Policy (M. Tonry, Ed.). Crime and Justice: A review of Research, 23, 43-114 Marston, W. (1938). The Lie Detector Test. New York: Richard R. Smith, 1938, pp. 1-179 References: