Psychology and Criminal Justice: Advanced Deception Detection Methods

This report examines the concept of deception within the criminal justice system, focusing on methods of detection and analysis. It begins by defining deception and exploring behavioral characteristics exhibited during interrogation, including body language cues associated with false confessions. The report then provides an overview of physiological detection methods, such as polygraph testing, from the perspectives of scientists and researchers. Furthermore, it contrasts modern research with traditional lie detection techniques, highlighting the evolution of methodologies from ancient practices to contemporary neuroimaging technologies like fMRI. The report concludes by emphasizing the importance of accurate deception detection to ensure fair outcomes in legal proceedings, with the aim of preventing wrongful convictions or acquittals.

Running head: PSYCHOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Psychology and Criminal Justice
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1PSYCHOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Table of Contents
Meaning of Deception.....................................................................................................................2
Characteristics of person when they act differently by being in interrogation................................2
Ways to spot false confessions from the body language.................................................................3
An overview perspective generated from scientist and researchers of physiological detection of
deception by using the polygraph testing........................................................................................5
Development of research nowadays as compared to the traditional methods:................................6
The FMRI (Functional magnetic resonance imaging):....................................................................8

2PSYCHOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Meaning of Deception
Deception may be defined as either successful or unsuccessful attempt made intentionally
for making the other believe in a fact that the sender of the message considers it false. Although
it is difficult to believe that deception does not become apparent in any context, the study of
deception and the method of detecting such deception is vital in forensic setting, in particular. It
is common for the law enforcement professionals to determine the authenticity of any confession
made by offenders and that may mistakes made in respect of determining the validity of any
statement may result in serious consequences. Such consequences may include sentencing of an
innocent person, or the acquittal of a guilty person enabling him to commit further crimes.
According to Ginton (2013), it is essential to be able to detect deception but it is a fact
that the ability of humans to assess deception is merely a matter of chance. The reliability of this
finding is remarkable although there are factors that retrain the rate of accurate judgments with
respect to the detection of such deception. For instance, higher level of accuracy can be achieved
when attention is given to what the person lying is stating instead of merely observing such
person. This is effective under circumstances when the person detecting deception has
accessibility to baseline information regarding the behavior of the person lying. Further, the
accuracy can be achieved effectively while detecting prepared messages instead of detecting
unprepared messages.
Characteristics of person when they act differently by being in interrogation
The criminals often falsify about their identities for deterring police investigations. In
order to identify a specific person, information including date of birth, social security number,

3PSYCHOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
gender and address of such person are used to obtain sufficient information about the offender or
the accused. As per criminal records in every country, the law enforcement agency exhibits that
several criminals have deceptive identities to deceive and harass the law enforcement agencies of
their respective countries or of countries where the crime is committed.
According to Hartwig and Bond (2014), there are certain characteristics that are common
in almost every criminals while they are being interrogated by the law enforcement officers.
Usually, when the Law enforcement officials interrogate the accused they usually smirk while
answering the questions, which are often construed as an indicator that the person is lying. They
seem to be nervous and are restless. Some of the accused often avoid making eye contacts with
the person interrogating which also depicts their deceiving strategy. Ginton (2013) argues that
these expressions do not justify that a person is lying as often innocent persons fell restless and
nervous when they are interrogated under the fear that they might be falsely framed as offenders
for the alleged crime. Thus, it can be said that there is no single behavior that indicates that a
person being interrogated is deceiving and falsifying about his identity or about the commission
of the relevant crime, instead these behaviors are indicate that a person is stressed,
psychologically discomfort or is in anxiety.
Ways to spot false confessions from the body language
According to Ginton (2013), a false criminal identity is often revealed from the other
investigation techniques, which includes observation of mental, emotional and physical
symptoms that are usually used by law enforcement officials for detecting deception. However,
Langleben and Moriarty (2013) states that such techniques are used for verifying the statements

4PSYCHOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
that are made by the criminals and neither of them is designed specifically for disclosing the lies
the criminals say about their identities.
Firstly, the law enforcement officials observe the non-verbal behaviors of the liars such
as their body movements (e.g. Scratching their heads), their emotional expressions, their facial
expressions (e.g. blinking of their eyes) as well as their vocal characteristics (e.g. Pitch of voice).
Langleben and Moriarty (2013) states that there is a connection between non-verbal behaviors
and emotions and the non-verbal conduct are exhibited frequently, especially, when it is difficult
for them to fabricate the lie.
The offenders or the accused to deceive the law enforcement officials commonly uses
facial movements. In the words of Langleben and Moriarty (2013), eyes are denoted as ‘window
to the soul’ as just by gazing into them, they reveal much information about a person. Given that
it is not possible for any person to exercise control over the size of the pupils, body experts
usually deduce maximum information about the state of person by simply relating to the eyes.
In regards to making eye contact and communicating with a person, effective eye contact
is said to be essential for interacting with people regularly. Overly persistent eye contact
symbolizes an over-awareness of person while they are emitting messages. In case, a person tries
to deceive the law enforcement officials, they may not make direct eye contact with such person
or their eye contact is often distorted just to establish that they are not averting to make such
direct contact. This is considered as a widely recognized as an indicator that a person is
deceiving or lying.
The second method is to analyze the verbal characteristics of the statement made by the
accused. Several forms of verbal characteristics include self-references, response length, direct

5PSYCHOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
answers, irrelevant information, plausible answers and over-generalized statements. Such
symptoms often enable the law enforcement officials to differentiate between the truthful
statements and the deceptive statements as some of the verbal symptoms are likely to be false
rather than being true statements.
According to Ginton (2013), the third method that can be used to determine whether a
accused person is lying is by determining psychological responses such as examining blood
pressure, palmar sweating heart rate, respiration, etc. The law enforcement officials often use
these techniques to determine whether the accused person is deceiving while making their
statements during interrogation. There are interrogating officers who are specifically trained to
conduct interrogation of the accused and the offenders to extract the truth about the crime
committed.
Langleben and Moriarty (2013) argue that police officers are not specifically trained to
conduct such interrogation hence, in practice; it is likely that they would perform the
interrogation effectively. In order to determine whether a criminal is deceiving, information can
be obtained from the criminal’s crime record.
An overview perspective generated from scientist and researchers of physiological detection of
deception by using the polygraph testing.
The psychologists and legal professional have interest in studying about lie detection that
is an area of interest in the field of psychology. Langleben and Moriarty (2013) states that
evidence play an essential role to establish a link between the crime, suspects, crime scene and
the victims. Polygraph test known as the Lie detector is used as a famous scientific technique
that has developed in the 20th century, which is also known as psychophysiological detection of

6PSYCHOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
deception examination. This is based on the change in Blood Pressure, Electrical resistance and
Respiration that can be subjected to measurement simultaneously.
The Polygraph test is based on the principle that the fear of entrapment and recognition
shall enable the person to deceive that is associated with the mental excitation that is again
concealed by physiological effort known as ‘Defense mechanism’. The researchers stated that
law enforcement agencies must require efficient and effective method for detecting the
deceptions associated with criminal identities. An automated detection approach should be
introduced to ensure detect deceptions more effectively than the police officers do.
Development of research nowadays as compared to the traditional methods:
Since time immemorial, the concept of lying has been a part of everyday life which also
applies in case of offenders. However, with the advent of lie detection techniques, the
determination of facts in criminal justice system has been easier. In this regard, it is noteworthy
to mention some of the ancient methods of lie detection (Bhutta et al., 2015). The first method \
originated in China, described as Circa 1000 B.C. in this method, the person who was suspected
was required to fill his/her mouth with a handful of dry rice (Farah et al.,2014). After sometimes,
the rice has to be spit out and if it was found that the rice is still dry then the suspect is held
guilty.
The second method was the trial by ordeal method. This was an important method which
was applied by the higher authorities in detecting lie. The trial by ordeal method was also termed
as judgments of God. According to this method, the person who was accused has to go through a
specific examination (Ginton, 2013). In this regard, based on the outcomes and consequences of
that specific examination the person was held guilty of crime. In Slovakia, the one-sided

7PSYCHOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
judgment of God was performed using a water or fire test (Hartwig & Bond, 2014). The water
test was carried out with the help of cold or hot water. In this test, the accused person was
required to put his hand into boiling hot water and therefore if no traces of burnt were observed
in the hand then in that case, the person was held to be guilty. However, the test based on cold
water was very dangerous in nature. In such test, the person was put in a roped sack and was
thrown into cold water. If it was found that the person emerged on the surface of the water within
a shorter time then the person was held guilty. In this regard, the higher authorities signified the
term that even water refused to accept the sinner.
After years passed, the primitive methods of lie detection became more complicated
(Langleben & Moriarty, 2013). The higher authorities started the practice of consecrated meal
where the priest was represented as the examiner and the procedure of examination was carried
out with the help of a piece of bread and sheep’s cheese which was very hard. In this process, the
accused was supposed to swallow the piece of bread and cheeses in one go without any
difficulty. If the person chocked then he was held guilty for the crime. In this regard, it can be
significantly added that the historical methods of lie detection generally created manifestations of
fear in the minds of the individuals. Therefore, in the method of Circa 1000 B.C, the mouth of
the people remained dry after swallowing the rice as a result of fear.
With the invention of phrenology and graphology, the methods of lie detection received
new recognition. The methods of phrenology and graphology were associated with the brain
(Llatser et al., 2013). The brain has been regarded as the central organ, which regulates the
emotions of the individuals, as well as their tendency to lie, which constitutes criminal intention.
Modern Authors identified the method of phrenology and described it as a process that helps in
the observation of the skull in order to determine the psychological attributes of a human being

8PSYCHOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
(Hartwig & Bond, 2014). However, the method of graphology is exactly the opposite. The
method of graphology involves the evaluation of the physical characteristics of the accused.
According to the scholars, the method of graphology has proved to be beneficial in identifying
the physical characteristics and handwriting patterns in order to identify the psychological state
of the person while he was writing (Langleben & Moriarty, 2013).
The polygraph was the contemporary method used in detecting lie of the offenders in
correctional centers. Modern scholars have significantly referred to the polygraph as a lie
detector. Since time immemorial, the polygraph has been taking measures and records of various
psychological units like the pulse respiration rates and rates of blood pressure. It is believed by
modern scholars that with the use of polygraph as a lie detector, the method of determining the
importat facts of the crime has been made easier.
The FMRI (Functional magnetic resonance imaging):
After explaining various techniques of lie detection of the historical era, the scope of new
innovative ideas has been discussed in the field of criminology. These new initiatives have
proved to be beneficial in designing new methods and techniques (Ten Brinke, Stimson &
Carney, 2014). However, for further research into the methods of lie detection the methods of
Functional MRI have been emphasized. In this regard, it is noteworthy to mention here that for
the proper functioning of the fMRI method focus has been laid on the activities of the central
nervous system. Modern researchers, however, carried on critical study method and explained
the importance of brain in detecting lie (Llatser et al., 2013). The researchers put emphasis on
three factors while detecting lie and these are- memorized lies, spontaneous lies and truth (Vrij,
Fisher & Blank, 2017). They evaluated the facts and finally concluded that both the memorized

9PSYCHOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
lies and spontaneous lies involved in the process of retrieving memory. According to modern
researchers, the findings of the study sometimes create conflict with the concept of inhibiting
truth. However, with the advent of modern technologies, experiments regarding the concept of
functional MRI began which generally focused on the observation of the cerebral cortex that
becomes activated as soon as an individual looks into the face of a human being. Further
research proved that with varied experiments, which were conducted on human beings where the
individuals were supposed to lie and in this regard, tests were performed with the help of fMRI
test in order to detect lie. In this regard, it is trustworthy to mention here that with such
investigation involving the brain, several other areas are also activated when an individual is
telling a lie. In this regard, most of the cases has been correctly identified.
Modern researchers were successful in drawing a clear attention to the fact that while
performing tests on lie detection, the researchers were aware of the fact that which of the
individuals are actually lying (Vrij, Fisher & Blank, 2017). However, modern lie detection
methods generally involved the questions, which will be asked to the offenders in order to detect
that whether the brain was active when the offender was lying.

10PSYCHOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
References:
Bhutta, M. R., Hong, M. J., Kim, Y. H., & Hong, K. S. (2015). Single-trial lie detection using a
combined fNIRS-polygraph system. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 709.
Farah, M. J., Hutchinson, J. B., Phelps, E. A., & Wagner, A. D. (2014). Functional MRI-based
lie detection: scientific and societal challenges. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(2), 123.
Ginton, A. (2013). A non-standard method for estimating accuracy of lie detection techniques
demonstrated on a self-validating set of field polygraph examinations. Psychology, Crime
& Law, 19(7), 577-594.
Granhag, P. A., Vrij, A., & Verschuere, B. (Eds.). (2015). Detecting deception: Current
challenges and cognitive approaches. John Wiley & Sons.
Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F. (2014). Lie detection from multiple cues: A meta‐analysis. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 28(5), 661-676.
Koller, C. I., Wetter, O. E., & Hofer, F. (2016). ‘Who's the Thief?’The Influence of Knowledge
and Experience on Early Detection of Criminal Intentions. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 30(2), 178-187.
Langleben, D. D., & Moriarty, J. C. (2013). Using brain imaging for lie detection: Where
science, law, and policy collide. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(2), 222.
Llatser, I., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Pierobon, M., & Alarcón, E. (2013). Detection techniques for
diffusion-based molecular communication. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
Communications, 31(12), 726-734.

11PSYCHOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Ten Brinke, L., Stimson, D., & Carney, D. R. (2014). Some evidence for unconscious lie
detection. Psychological science, 25(5), 1098-1105.
Vrij, A., Fisher, R. P., & Blank, H. (2017). A cognitive approach to lie detection: A meta ‐
analysis. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22(1), 1-21.