Polygraph Testing in the Courtroom: Legal and Ethical Challenges in Southeast Asia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65339/ijsair.V2.I1.140Keywords:
polygraphy, polygraphy testing, forensic science, deception detection, southeast asiaAbstract
This review offers a thorough examination of the scientific, legal, and ethical aspects of polygraph testing, focusing on the evolving judicial landscape in Southeast Asia from 2016 to 2026. Polygraphy remains a controversial tool in global criminal justice systems, with its widespread use in investigations often contrasted by significant skepticism regarding its scientific and legal validity. While some studies of the Comparison Question Test suggest that it offers a meaningful improvement over traditional methods of detecting deception, the scientific community still raises concerns about its validity and the high risk of false positives. The research reveals considerable variation in legal standards across the region, with countries like Indonesia treating polygraph results as a novel issue in criminal evidence, while Singapore maintains a strict policy of rejecting polygraph results in court. The review also explores how the move toward digital and AI-driven justice systems in nations such as Malaysia and Singapore raises concerns about algorithmic bias and the transparency of decision-making processes. Of particular importance is the constitutional impact of polygraph testing, including issues related to the right against self-incrimination and the emerging concept of "brain privacy." By synthesizing insights from various fields, this study supports the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 16, which focuses on promoting peace, justice, and strong institutions. It advocates for the creation of unified, evidence-based forensic standards that protect judicial integrity. The paper concludes with a policy framework that calls for region-specific research and the development of ethical guidelines to ensure that advancements in forensic technologies do not infringe upon fundamental human rights.
References
Agarawal, R., Ahmad, T., & Mali, M. P. (2025). Forensic science on trial: A critical analysis of DNA profiling, polygraph test, fingerprint test, and brain mapping in the Indian criminal justice system. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 11, 972. https://doi.org/10.64252/f4k1g511
Albul, S., Shendryk, V., Horbachov, O., Penkov, S., & Voloshyna, M. (2023). Legal principles of polygraph use in the field of corruption prevention: International experience. Cuestiones Políticas, 41(77), 489. https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.4177.32
Asiati, E. I. F., Jatmika, P., & Madjid, A. (2026). The use of polygraph (lie detector) in criminal case evidence in Indonesia. Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18296842
Cheong, B. C. (2024). Transparency and accountability in AI systems: Safeguarding wellbeing in the age of algorithmic decision-making. Frontiers in Human Dynamics, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fhumd.2024.1421273
Fraidan, A. A. (2025). Procedural transparency and legal accountability to sustain AI-mediated language assessment in Saudi Arabia. SAGE Open, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251396113
Habibulloh, M. (2025). Digital governance and the right to privacy: A comparative analysis of AI regulation in Southeast Asia and the European Union. Journal of Law Policy and Global Development, 1(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.71305/jlpgd.v1i1.333
Hashmi, M. A. I., Zafar, N., Sultan, S., & Fareed, E. (2025). The role of AI in criminal justice: Predictive policing, bias, and due process. Physical Education Health and Social Sciences, 3(3), 67. https://doi.org/10.63163/jpehss.v3i3.513
Honts, C. R., Thurber, S., & Handler, M. (2020). A comprehensive meta‐analysis of the comparison question polygraph test. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 411. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3779
Hossain, M. B., Miraz, M. H., & Ya’u, A. (2024). From legality to responsibility: Charting the course for AI regulation in Malaysia. IIUM Law Journal, 32(1), 397. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumlj.v32i1.927
Iacono, W. G. (2024). Psychology and the lie detector industry: A fifty-year perspective. Biological Psychology, 190, 108808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2024.108808
Kumar, N. (2025). Lie detection in criminal justice: The role and limitations of polygraphs with Indian cases. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5397122
Le, L. C., Hoang, Y. H., Bui, H. T., Nguyen, D. Q., Thanh, S., & Luong, H. T. (2022). Understanding causes for wrongful convictions in Vietnam: A view from the top and the bottom of the iceberg. Asian Journal of Criminology, 17, 55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-022-09390-7
Lü, H., & Liang, B. (2022). Introduction: Wrongful convictions and exonerations in Asia. Asian Journal of Criminology, 17, 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-022-09385-4
Mallow, M. S. (2020). The admissibility of polygraph test as evidence. https://doi.org/10.46529/socioint.202018
Matsuda, I., Ogawa, T., & Tsuneoka, M. (2019). Broadening the use of the concealed information test in the field. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, 24. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00024
Nemeth, C. P. (1983). Polygraphs: Erosion of the privacy right. Forensic Science International, 21(2), 103. https://doi.org/10.1016/0379-0738(83)90099-3
Rajan, P. B. (2018). Polygraph tests - Benefits and challenges. Academicus International Scientific Journal, 19, 146. https://doi.org/10.7336/academicus.2019.19.10
Rashid, A. M. S., Carmichael, B., Su, C., Shi, K., Lim, K. S., Poorvika, S. K., Wan, N. J., Govil, E., & Yap, D. (2024). Evaluating physiological indicators in detecting deception and truthfulness using the comparison question test. Research Square (Research Square). https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5413864/v1
Sanghvi, H., Ling, J. S. W., Tay, E. S., & Kuek, C. Y. (2022). Digitalisation of judiciary in Malaysia: Application of artificial intelligence in the sentencing process. In Advances in Information Security, Privacy, and Ethics (pp. 91). https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-494069-59-6_9
Saxe, L., & Ben‐Shakhar, G. (1999). Admissibility of polygraph tests: The application of scientific standards post-Daubert. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(1), 203. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.5.1.203
Shuai, H. (2023). Obligation or right? A historical comparison of the criminal confession system between China and the USA. Beijing Law Review, 14(4), 1735. https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2023.144096
Tunick, M. (2017). Brain privacy and the case of cannibal cop. Res Publica, 23(2), 179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-017-9352-7
Ungria, M. C. A. D., & Jimenez, E. B. (2022). Ethical governance of forensic DNA databases in Southeast Asia. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9364-2_9-1
Zuwanda, Z. S., Lubis, A. F., Solapari, N., Sakmaf, M. S., & Triyantoro, A. (2024). Ethical and legal analysis of artificial intelligence systems in law enforcement with a study of potential human rights violations in Indonesia. The Easta Journal Law and Human Rights, 2(3), 176. https://doi.org/10.58812/eslhr.v2i03.283
