Lie Detector Test in Russia

Lie Detector Test in Russia

A comprehensive survey was conducted among Russian polygraph examiners between 2003 and 2016, divided into three distinct stages. The first stage took place from 2003 to 2004, the second in 2012, and the third from 2015 to 2016. The findings from all stages were compiled, analyzed, and presented in the following publication.

Overview of Polygraph Examination Practices in Russia

(Results of the Polygraph Examiners Survey, 2003–2016)

By Yaroslava Komissarova and Said R. Khamzin

Keywords: polygraph, lie detection, survey, polygraph in Russia

General Characteristics of Respondents

This study examines polygraph examination practices in Russia based on surveys conducted from 2003 to 2016. The surveys were conducted in three stages:

• 2003–2004: 243 polygraph examiners participated (first stage).
• 2012: 167 examiners participated (second stage).
• 2015–2016: 181 examiners participated (third stage).

Respondents included officers from various government agencies, private organizations, and individual polygraph examiners. In the first stage, 67.5% of respondents were male, while females made up 32.5%. By the second and third stages, female participation had surpassed male respondents by 12% and 20%, respectively.

The majority of respondents across all stages were aged 31–40, with notable increases in this age bracket over time:

• First stage: 44.9%
• Second stage: 40.7%
• Third stage: 62.4%

Work experience among polygraph examiners also evolved:

• In the first stage, experience was evenly distributed across three categories: up to two years, two to five years, and five to ten years (each around 30%).
• By the second stage, examiners with 5–10 years of experience became the majority (37.1%).
• In the third stage, more than half of the respondents reported 5–10 years of experience.

These changes may be attributed to regular conferences held between 1997 and 2011 by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, aimed at sharing best practices in polygraph use.

Key Findings and Application of Polygraphs

Survey participants highlighted the effectiveness of polygraphs in criminal proceedings for tasks such as:

1. Narrowing the pool of suspects:
   • First stage: 38.7%
   • Second stage: 52.1%
   • Third stage: 50.8%
2. Gathering additional crime-related information:
   • First stage: 25.9%
   • Second stage: 43.7%
   • Third stage: 38.1%
3. Identifying roles in a crime:
   • First stage: 21.4%
   • Second stage: 11.4%
   • Third stage: 12.2%
4. Detecting false crime reports:
   • First stage: 4.5%
   • Second stage: 14.4%
   • Third stage: 19.3%
5. Determining whether individuals concealed or exaggerated information:
   • First stage: 3.7%
   • Second stage: 12.6%
   • Third stage: 9.2%

Notably, Russian polygraph examiners often lack formal legal education, which affects their understanding of the distinction between operational-investigative activities and criminal proceedings.

Attitudes Toward Polygraph Use

In the first stage, opinions on law enforcement’s attitude toward polygraph use were as follows:

• 76.5% believed polygraphs were primarily used for operational-investigative activities.
• 23.9% saw polygraphs as tools requiring specialized expertise.
• 9.5% associated polygraphs with psychophysiological examinations.
• 7% viewed them as unconventional methods, akin to telepathy or dowsing.
• 4.9% linked polygraph use to forensic psychological examinations.

By the second and third stages, many respondents acknowledged the broader uses of polygraphs, including their role in operational-investigative activities (50.3% and 51.4%, respectively) and psychophysiological examinations (34.1% and 25.4%, respectively).

Challenges in Polygraph Use

Several challenges in polygraph use were identified:

• Lack of qualified specialists:
  • First stage: 14.8%
  • Second stage: 42.6%
  • Third stage: 57.4%
• Insufficient awareness among law enforcement officers:
  • First stage: 49.8%
  • Second stage: 61.1%
  • Third stage: 31%

The absence of clear legal provisions authorizing polygraph use was also a recurring concern:

• First stage: 47.7%
• Second stage: 17.4%
• Third stage: 23.8%

Although a draft federal law on polygraph use was proposed, it faced significant criticism and was ultimately abandoned in 2012.

Competence of Polygraph Examiners

Survey respondents in the third stage identified key factors that determine a polygraph examiner’s competence:

1. Training quality: Chosen by 71.3% of respondents.
2. Work experience: Highlighted by 19.3%, with some emphasizing government experience.
3. Higher education: Selected by 10.5%, with preferences for medical, psychological, or legal qualifications.
4. Positive feedback from employers: Noted by 3.9%.

Additionally, 84.5% emphasized the need for professional standards to be developed and approved by the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection.

Ethical Considerations and Video Recording

The majority of respondents supported the practice of video-recording polygraph examinations to ensure transparency and protect the rights of examinees. By the third stage, 69.6% supported mandatory video recording, while only 9.9% reported not conducting recordings due to technical limitations.

Video recordings serve multiple purposes:

• Protecting the examiner from accusations of misconduct.
• Providing evidence for clients.
• Safeguarding the rights of the examinee.
• Enabling quality control of the examiner’s work.

Summary

Polygraph examinations in Russia are widely used across various fields, including criminal investigations, labor relations, and government services. Despite the advancements in practice, challenges remain, including the lack of qualified professionals, legal clarity, and consensus on ethical standards.

As polygraph use continues to evolve, it represents a unique intersection of psychology, physiology, and forensic science, requiring consistent training, ethical oversight, and formalized standards to enhance its credibility and effectiveness.

Read more: Do Lie Detectors Actually Work