As the corruption case involving former Cabinet secretary-general Lin Yi-shih (林益世) continues to draw attention, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Special Investigation Division (SID) is dealing with Lin’s family and they have also started to conduct lie detector tests, or polygraphs, on those suspected of involvement in the case. However, caution needs to be taken with such tests and criminal prosecutions and investigations must avoid becoming overly reliant on them.
The efficacy of lie detector tests is based on several premises: The first is that the true or false nature of what a person is asked will arouse certain physiological reactions in the individual which can be registered by the lie detector if the person is unable to control them. It is also based on the premise that experts can then interpret these results. While these premises seem to be scientific, they have always been surrounded by much controversy and doubt.
There are many reasons why people question the efficacy of polygraphs. These include questions over their objectivity, especially when it comes to confirming the expertise of the person administering the test, whether the device used meets the required standards and whether the testing environment is controlled. These things all influence the outcome of a test.
Also, because each person’s physiology is unique, how can there be a uniform set of standards for judging test results? Other types of forensic testing, such as DNA tests, are not subject to these problems. This not only makes them highly accurate, the results can also be reviewed and verified by other experts using similar procedures.
However, because lie detector tests cannot eliminate many of the above-mentioned problems, they lack reproducibility, a trait heavily emphasized by modern science. It is therefore not possible to clarify how accurate the administration and outcome of a lie detector test was. These are issues that make such tests less reliable.
Criminal investigations in Taiwan may involve the use of polygraph exams with several conditions. One requires that test administrators have proper professional training and experience, another requires confirmation that the lie detector is of good quality and operating appropriately, and the other is that the testing environment is free from distractions.
Furthermore, a polygraph can only be performed when the person in question is in regular, stable mental and physical condition. In order to make sure that those tested remain in a stable state, the person administering the test should not only inform the accused of their right to refuse the procedure and about the effects a lie detector test may have, but the psychosomatic state of the subject should also be checked to verify that they are in a suitable psychological state.
All of these requirements clearly highlight how polygraph exams given under forced circumstances can not only damage the right to defense of the accused, but also how the results obtained from such a test may not adequately portray the truth.
Even though strict regulations on the use of lie detectors in the practice of criminal justice exist, it does not necessarily follow that these demands can be put into practice.
In spite of the polygrapher controlling the test environment and placing the person receiving the test in isolation, even if the subject was innocent, would they really be able to keep their mind and body in a normal state?
In addition, tests are often administered when prosecutors believe the accused is not telling the truth or when they are not confessing to a crime they have supposedly committed. This means that before a test is conducted, the person administering the test could likely be biased and also that objectivity is hard to guarantee. If the accused is genuinely innocent and somehow still fails a lie detector test, they essentially end up making a “confession” of sorts and this is why it is hard to say how effective polygraphs are at proving guilt.
In ancient China, there was a practice in which the accused was ordered to place a grain of rice in their mouth which was then examined after they were questioned to judge whether what they said was true. This was based on the reasoning that when a person lies, they become nervous and as a result get a dry mouth, with the result that the grain of rice would not be soaked with saliva. Of course, this idea seems ridiculous now, but when compared with supposedly scientific polygraphy procedures, the old Chinese rice method does not seem all that different.
Therefore, the use of lie detector tests in criminal investigations not only needs to be carefully scrutinized, but the criminal justice system should avoid seeing their results as the truth and from using them in prosecutions.
Wu Ching-chin is an assistant professor in the Department of Financial and Economic Law at Aletheia University.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.