PoliceLink

Section 19B. (1) As used in this section the term “lie detector test” shall mean any test utilizing a polygraph or any other device, mechanism, instrument or written examination, which is operated, or the results of which are used or interpreted by an examiner for the purpose of purporting to assist in or enable the detection of deception, the verification of truthfulness, or the rendering of a diagnostic opinion regarding the honesty of an individual.

(2) It shall be unlawful for any employer or his agent, with respect to any of his employees, or any person applying to him for employment, including any person applying for employment as a police officer, to subject such person to, or request such person to take a lie detector test within or without the commonwealth, or to discharge, not hire, demote or otherwise discriminate against such person for the assertion of rights arising hereunder. This section shall not apply to lie detector tests administered by law enforcement agencies as may be otherwise permitted in criminal investigations.

(a) The fact that such lie detector test was to be, or was, administered outside the commonwealth for employment within the commonwealth shall not be a valid defense to an action brought under the provisions of subsection (3) or (4).

(b) All applications for employment within the commonwealth shall contain the following notice which shall be in clearly legible print:

“It is unlawful in Massachusetts to require or administer a lie detector test as a condition of employment or continued employment. An employer who violates this law shall be subject to criminal penalties and civil liability.”

(3) Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars nor less than three hundred dollars. Second and subsequent violations of any provision of this section shall be punishable by a fine of not more than fifteen hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than ninety days, or both such fine and imprisonment.

In the case of a corporation, the responsible individual shall be the president, chief operating officer or any managerial or supervisory person who allows or condones such violation.

No waiver of the provisions of this section by an employee or prospective employee shall be a defense to either criminal prosecution or civil liability.

(4) Any person aggrieved by a violation of subsection (2) may institute within three years of such violation and prosecute in his own name and on his own behalf, or for himself and for other similarly situated, a civil action for injunctive relief and any damages thereby incurred, including treble damages for any loss of wages or other benefits. The total awarded damages shall equal or exceed a minimum of five hundred dollars for each such violation. A person so aggrieved and who prevails in such action shall be entitled to an award of the costs of the litigation and reasonable attorney fees.

www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/149-19b.htm

[edit] 2003 National Academy of Sciences report

The accuracy of the polygraph has been contested almost since the introduction of the device. In 2003, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a report entitled “The Polygraph and Lie Detection”. The NAS found that the majority of polygraph research was of low quality. After culling through the numerous studies of the accuracy of polygraph detection the NAS identified 57 that had “sufficient scientific rigor”. These studies concluded that a polygraph test regarding a specific incident can discern the truth at “a level greater than chance, yet short of perfection”. The report also concluded that this level of accuracy was probably overstated and the levels of accuracy shown in these studies "are almost certainly higher than actual polygraph accuracy of specific-incident testing in the field.”[1]

When polygraphs are used as a screening tool (in national security matters and for law enforcement agencies for example) the level of accuracy drops to such a level that “Its accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies.” In fact, the NAS extrapolated that if the test were sensitive enough to detect 80% of spies (a level of accuracy which it did not assume), in a hypothetical polygraph screening of 10,000 employees including 10 spies, 8 spies and 1,598 non-spies would fail the test. Thus, roughly 99.6 percent of positives (those failing the test) would be false positives. The NAS concluded that the polygraph “...may have some utility”[2] but that there is "little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy."[3]

The NAS conclusions paralleled those of the earlier United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment report "Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation”.[4]

[edit] Admissibility of polygraphs in court

[edit] United States

In 2007, polygraph testimony was admitted by stipulation in 19 states, and was subject to the discretion of the trial judge in federal court. The use of polygraph in court testimony remains controversial, although it is used extensively in post-conviction supervision, particularly of sex offenders. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) [5], the old Frye standard was lifted and all forensic evidence, including polygraph, had to meet the new Daubert standard in which "underlying reasoning or methodology is scientifically valid and properly can be applied to the facts at issue." While polygraph tests are commonly used in police investigations in the US, no defendant or witness can be forced to undergo the test. In United States v. Scheffer (1998) [6], the U.S. Supreme Court left it up to individual jurisdictions whether polygraph results could be admitted as evidence in court cases. Nevertheless, it is used extensively by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and law enforcement agencies. In the States of Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware and Iowa it is illegal for any employer to order a polygraph either as conditions to gain employment, or if an employee has been suspected of wrongdoing. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA) generally prevents employers from using lie detector tests, either for pre-employment screening or during the course of employment, with certain exemptions.^[31]

In the United States, the State of New Mexico admits polygraph testing in front of juries under certain circumstances. In many other states, polygraph examiners are permitted to testify in front of judges in various types of hearings (Motion to Revoke Probation, Motion to Adjudicate Guilt).

In 2007, in Ohio v. Sharma, an Ohio trial court overruled the objections of a prosecutor and allowed a polygraph examiner to testify regarding a specific issue criminal examination. The court took the position that the prosecutors regularly used polygraph examiner to conduct criminal tests against defendants, but only objected to the examiner's testimony when the results contradicted what they hoped to achieve.[7] Dr. Louis Rovner,[8], a polygraph expert from California, tested the defendant and testified as an expert witness both at a pretrial admissibility hearing and at trial. The defendant, who had been charged with sexual battery, was acquitted.^[

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph

I will say the polygraph is more accurate than the voice stress analyzer.