Outline 개관 왜곡행위(Countermeasures) 과학적 증거로서의 거짓말 탐지 My outline of my presentation will Cover first what the definition of countermeasure, why is it important What we know about this topic based on existing open literature …. As most countermeasure research are closely guarded secrets of Department Of Defense Some shortcomings in existing research and more importantly how Field examiners view present findings How we hope to address some of the shortcomings Conclude with a quick summary

HISTORY: 미 육군의 영향 1956: 군 통역 요원으로 훈련 1979: U.S. Army CID (Robert Kerm) 1961: 처음 해외 교육 (육군 대위) Army School at Fort Gordon 1979: U.S. Army CID (Robert Kerm) 1984: 한국 거짓말 탐지 협회 창립, 검찰 벡스터 학교 1992: 해외 수료 Virginia school of polygraph 1996: KPA’s 정관 개정, 표준절차 마련, 검찰 탈퇴 1999: 처음 공식 교육

검사관 구성2004 현재 민간 부분 없는 것 특징 경찰 (53) 검찰 (17) 국방 (19) 국과수 (3)

검사건수: 4511 44% - 형사 56% - 교통

검사활용 영역 성범죄자 관리 민간영역 범죄 수사 경찰 채용 절차 보안 (산업스파이, 테러, 연구소) The urgency to know more about countermeasures is linked to increasing use of polygraph as forensic tool to resolve Criminal case within the criminal justice setting and security and intelligence related issues ……..the threat of evading detection have more serious consequences in intelligence security applications has one person can bring about serious damage…. And also to the availability of cm information from various sources

Countermeasures (CM) 검사결과에 영향을 주기 위한 허위진술 자에 의한 의도적 기법 허위반응을 진실반응 또는 판정불능으로 바꾸려는 것이 목표 By definition –countermeasure can be defined as a single techniques or a combination of techniques to change the outcome of the polygraph examination From that of a deceptive to truthful or inconclusive Two quick note before I move on First I am using a wider definition to include inconclusive. With a view that a deceptive subjective has also achieved their objective when they have neutralized the effectiveness of your forensic tool even if they are not able to overcome it. Secondly, you may already to know that Innocent subjects during the course of the examination may also do some thing to help you….yes existing lab studies do suggest that this may be the case ….but innocent people are actually trying help you move along the same path and are technically not doing anything to go against you…in that sense technically they cannot be said to be employing countermeasures .

Types Of Countermeasures 검사기록(polygraph recordings) 이 아래 작용에 의해 왜곡될 수도 있다. 신체적 - 구두 속에 압정, 호흡조절 정신적 - 흥분사고 약품 - 혈압강하제, 감기약 등 Countermeasures can be applied in various forms I have listed some of the common ones here ….. I would like to point out that physical and mental countermeasure are generally known as specific state countermeasure that is you can employ them at specific points during the testing protocol Mental and physical countermeasure pose different threat levels in terms of detection as physical countermeasure are generally believed to be more detectable than mental countermeasures Countermeasures associated with the use of drugs fall under the general state countermeasures- is it is used to reduce overall reaction potential rather than at specific points in time during the test Existing research suggest that consumption of drugs and alcohol does not affect the outcome of polygraph tests in general

Sources of CM 개인적 경험의 공유 책, 잡지 등 인터넷, 웹사이트 (www.polygraph.com) 전직검사관, 하루 2만5천 조회 We all know about the traditional methods But the quality and richness of information of cm lit in the internet has Brought about a threat level that is far ……to highlight the threat let me let me quote a an ex\-DOD cm expert

CQT Diagnostic Rule Diagnostic evaluation : Differential responses to CQ and RQ CQ a benchmark CQ > RQ Truthful CQ < RQ Deceptive Using this technique a decision of whether a subject is deceptive or truthful is based by comparing the physiological responses to that of a control question and a relevant question …..for example if am testing a subject in a theft case I would ask a question like “ have you ever stolen anything even one time in your life” and compare that to a crime question Did you steal the $500? Using the CQ as a benchmark, I would then decide if they person was truthful or deceptive based on the differential response Now if you have a deceptive subject note that his reactions to the CQ will be less than that to the RQ

Strategies to Defeat CQT Objective CQ > RQ Strategy 1 관련질문 반응을 줄이려는 노력 Strategy 2 비교 질문에 높게 반응 노력 What he has o then is do something to bring about a change such that his reactions to the CQ is greater to the CQ than RQ There are only two strategies the person has …….. Most critics and experts agree that it is difficult to reduce your reactions to the RQ because it is like telling your heart to beat slower or telling What then the suggest is that you enhance your reactions to the CQ….upon recognition till you hear the next question and then relax

Effect of CM – What we know 현장 연구 효과성 파악위한 데이터 수집 어려움 실험실 연구 일정 통제 환경에서 데이터 수집 가능 Before I can go on to talk about what we know from existing lit …..I just want to state that…..you cannot know much about cm based on field data as for obvious reasons subjects are are not going to tell you about the techniques or type of training they received ….. As such we have to look at lab data about we know thus far

Levels Of CM Attempts Naive – 임의적 자의적 Low level – 정보제공 Mid level – 정보제공과 훈련 High level – 정보제공과 고도의 반복훈련

Naive Use of Countermeasures 검사 절차나 질문의 종류를 구분하지 못하므로 효과적이지 못함 It is clear from existing research, subjects who attempt the use of a single or a multiple countermeasures, without knowing much about test procedures or question types cannot defeat the CQT…..

Low Level CM 사전 정보만으로 왜곡 시도 검사 절차에 대한 지식 왜곡 자료 등 공부 통과에 효과적이지 못했음 These are attempts by people who have read about test procedures, evaluation rules …. Again based on lab data it is rather conclusive that the the CQT cannot be defeated by information alone

Mid- Level CM 언제 왜곡행위를 사용하는지 훈련 받음 왜곡 행위에 대한 피드백 Essentially this level of attempts after receiving instruction in the unobtrusive and timely use of a cm …..from about 15 mins

High - Level CM 검사관과 함께 고도의 훈련 검사 반응을 함께 관찰 등 The key difference between this level and the earlier level is that subjects in this catergory work with a trained examiner and sit for trial polygraph tests prior o their actual tests …..that is they get to see their polygraph charts ….. This kind of training is more readily available to intelligence settings … so far success rates at this leval range from 25 to 50 odd percent

움직임 포착 센서 부착 왜곡 감지 검사 여러 형태의 실험 연구 진행중 First is that existing findings ….is contrary to training IO psychology lit… It is well known fact that to the geater extend that you are able to simulate your training to the actual situation in terms of complexity and instensity the greater will be the tranfer rate of whateever that was learned to the actual situation …..based on data we are finding that subjects who have received a higher level training are not doing well as subjects with less training…..this is rather puzzling…. Secondly field examiners don’t accept the findings …..based on the fact field practices are far more sophisticated than what has been used in lab studies thus far …… Field examiners exert that they use ….movement sensors ….that can detect subtle movements …..research carried out by the Canadaian Police suggest that detection rates with a sensor are better than a keen observer Secondly they also highlight they have detect countermeasures with the use of anti-counter measure tests…. With this in mind …..our present research

문제 제기 한 과학자의 개발 -> 증거능력을 인정할 수 있을까? 과학수사의 정의 현재는 과학적 증거의 범람 시대 but 재판과정에서 적용할 수 있는 일반적인 기준이 부재.

미국에서 일반적으로 인정되는 기준 근거하는 과학적 이론이 유효 이론을 적용하는 기술이 유효 기술을 특정조건하에 적절하게 사용할것 일반적인 기준으로 손색이 없지만, 새로운 과학적 증거가 제출될 경우가 문제. 이를 판단하기 위한 요건으로 -> Frye Test, Daubert 판결

Frye Test Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013(D. C. Cir. 1923) 특정한 과학적 이론이나 기술이 관련 과학 분야에서 일반적으로 승인되었음이 입증되어야만 증거로서 허용될 수 있다 과학적 증거를 재판 과정에서 허용하기 위한 ‘전문성을 갖춘 최초의 법적 기준’으로서의 가치를 지님

Daubert 기준 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993) 4가지 기준 증거를 뒷받침하는 과학(이론이나 기법)이 검증될 수 있거나 검증되었던 것인가? 이론이나 기법이 필적할만한 과학계의 심사와 발표에 종속되는 것인가? 특정한 기법의 경우, 알려졌거나 발생 가능한 오류 비율은 얼마인가? 결론적으로, 그 이론이나 기법이 속하는 과학계에서 어느 정도의 일반적 인정을 받았는가?

우리나라의 판례 일반적 접근방식과 개별적 접근방식 관련성, 검증가능성, 이론의 전문성, 오류비율, 일반적 승인을 기준으로 Daubert 기준과 비교

우리나라의 판례 거짓말탐지기 기준 83도 712, 83도 3146 관련성과 이론의 전문성을 요건으로 취급 필적 감정 기준 92도 1148 판결

우리나라의 판례 증거능력요건 Daubert 거짓말탐지기 필적감정기준 위드마크 판례 정액 반응감정 유전자 감식 모발 감정 지문 감식 사망시간 추정 관련성 ○ 검증가능성 이론의 전문성 오류비율 일반적 승인

요약 우리나라의 판례는 미국의 기준에 비해 상당히 관대 AND 각 개별기준에서조차 적용 기준이 일치하지 않음. 왜냐하면, 과학적 증거들에 대한 연구자료가 부족하기 때문. 일반적 기준 수립에 초점을 맞추기 보다는 개별 증거들에 대한 연구자료 축적이 시급한 과제.

결어 거짓말 탐지의 과학성 제고를 위한 과제 한국적 문화에 맞는 질문 기법 개발 타당성에 관한 연구 축적 및 전문 학술지 발간 한국적 문화에 맞는 질문 기법 개발 타당성에 관한 연구 축적 및 전문 학술지 발간 형사사법기관과 심리학계의 긴밀한 접촉 거짓말 탐지의 과학성 제고를 위한 과제 조사관의 객관성 확보와 양적 및 질적 성장 아동 성폭력 범죄자의 관리 및 교정에 활용 산업 스파이, 테러 행위 등의 예방