An interesting abstract to establish the validity of the use of lie detection techniques when establishing insanity.
INTRODUCTION
There is increasing demand for psychiatric expert testimony in criminal proceedings. A person is responsible for his actions unless he is subject to the penal code, Section 34 h, insanity. Mental illness is not sufficient to determine insanity; it must be proven that the patient did not understand what he had done, did not comprehend the inappropriateness of his actions: or could not have avoided performing the deed. Opponents argue that the expert testimony is not scientific and not professional and alternatively that the mentally ill avoid responsibility even when there is no connection between the illness and the offence.
OBJECTIVES
The polygraph examination is an important instrument for confirming credibility of the testimony but it has not yet been investigated in the field of forensic psychiatry.
AIMS
To examine the validity of a polygraph examination in psychotic patients. To compare polygraph tests with psychiatric examinations.
METHODS
Patients were tested with a polygraph examination on there misjudged psychotic behaviour.
RESULTS
24 patients signed a consent form, but not all eventually participated. All patients received anti-psychotic medications. In general valid polygraph examination can be performed to patients with the psychotic illnesses (i.e. schizophrenia). Agitated or cognitive deprived patients tests were not reliable. The psychiatric examinations or the expert testimonies were in accord with the polygraph examination.
CONCLUSIONS
Preliminary data indicate that polygraph examinations are valid in patients with the psychotic illnesses. But not in agitated or cognitive deprived patients. Expert testimonies were found reliable in determining insanity.
An interesting abstract to establish the validity of the use of lie detection techniques when establishing insanity.
Introduction
There is increasing demand for psychiatric expert testimony in criminal proceedings. A person is responsible for his actions unless he is subject to the penal code, Section 34 h, insanity. Mental illness is not sufficient to determine insanity; it must be proven that the patient did not understand what he had done, did not comprehend the inappropriateness of his actions: or could not have avoided performing the deed. Opponents argue that the expert testimony is not scientific and not professional and alternatively that the mentally ill avoid responsibility even when there is no connection between the illness and the offence.
Objectives
The polygraph examination is an important instrument for confirming credibility of the testimony but it has not yet been investigated in the field of forensic psychiatry.
Aims
View original post 118 more words
Forensic Files 
The article below was published in the now defunct magazine Gray Areas almost twenty years ago. (Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 1995 pp. 75-77). Antipolygraph.og founder George Maschke noted in 2008 that article “makes a good introduction to the pseudoscience of polygraphy” and “the criticisms of polygraphy remain valid today.” They still do.
http://disruptedphysician.com/2014/12/08/2689/
http://disruptedphysician.com/2015/02/25/junk-science-in-the-medical-profession-the-resurgence-of-polygraph-lie-detection-in-an-age-of-evidence-based-medicine/
LikeLike