A former Oklahoma City police officer who created a website intended to help people beat a lie detector was sentenced this week after pleading guiltyto federal charges last May.
Doug Williams, 69, of Norman, was the owner and operator of Polygraph.com, where he advertised training to help people defeat a polygraph machine. Williamscreated Polygraph.com, he says, after realizing how inaccurate and unreliable these tests were in determining a person's honesty. While it is not necessarilyillegal that he taught people the skills to defeat the test, Williams was walking a fine line with law enforcement. He crossed that line, prosecutorssaid, when he knowingly trained someone to beat the machine to conceal criminal activity in applying for a job as a federal employee; when he knowinglytrained someone posing as a federal officer to conceal crimes; and when he instructed the people he trained to deny receiving polygraph training from him.
Because Williams knew these people would be lying in relation to federal investigations and federal employment, he was charged with fraud and witness tampering.Last spring, Williams pleaded guilty to two counts of mail fraud and three counts of witness tampering.
Williams faced up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each count--100 years total. Although his attorney requested a sentence ofprobation or house arrest, a U.S. District Judge sentenced him to 2 years in prison.
A Business Insiderarticle written after Williams's guilty plea discussed polygraph tests and their notable inaccuracies:
In 2002, however, the National Academy of Sciences published one of the most comprehensive studies of polygraph accuracy, concluding that while the tests could "differentiate lying from telling the truth at rates well above chance," they aren't accurate enough for security purposes.
"Better than chance" seems to be good enough for polygraph supporters; however, it would not be enough to meet the necessary burden of proof ina criminal case. Where civil lawsuits are determined by a "preponderance of evidence"--it's more likely than not that the defendant committedthe acts the plaintiff alleges--criminal cases must be determined beyond a reasonable doubt. Saying a person is probably lying, or thatit is likely that he or she is lying, is insufficient to prove a lie.
A polygraph, because it measures certain physiological attributes, can be fooled. This may occur when a person practices a lie until their bodyis no longer betraying the deception. Polygraphs may also give inconclusive results if a person being questioned is nervous--and let's faceit, who isn't nervous when being questioned as a suspect in a crime?
Attorney Deanne Katz writes on FindLaw.com ofhow nervousness can affect polygraph results:
It turns out the symptoms of nervousness or anxiety are the same symptoms people exhibit when lying. So for individuals who are worried about the test itself, it may be hard to distinguish that fear from the reaction produced by actual lying.
Because of this, in most jurisdictions across the United States, polygraph test results are inadmissible in court. If you are asked to take a liedetector test, you should absolutely refuse without consulting your attorney.
