{"id":904,"date":"2013-04-20T04:47:58","date_gmt":"2013-04-20T09:47:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/?p=904"},"modified":"2013-04-20T08:40:54","modified_gmt":"2013-04-20T13:40:54","slug":"discredited-lawyer-promotes-discredited-lie-test","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/2013\/04\/20\/discredited-lawyer-promotes-discredited-lie-test\/","title":{"rendered":"Discredited Lawyer Promotes Discredited Lie Test"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"F.<\/a>
F. Lee Bailey<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Disbarred criminal defense lawyer F. Lee Bailey<\/a> will be the keynote speaker at a seminar<\/a> jointly presented by the American Polygraph Association<\/a> and the Maine Polygraph Association next Wednesday to Friday, 24-26 April 2013 in Saco, Maine. The stated purpose of the seminar is “to educate lawyers, investigators, therapists, probation and governmental officers and members of the judiciary on the current state of polygraph \u2013 often referred to by the misnomer ‘Lie Detector’<\/em> \u2013 usage in the United States.” Such individuals will be required to pay $250 for the privilege. It is perhaps fitting that a crooked lawyer would be selected as keynote speaker by practitioners of a crooked profession: polygraphy depends on the operator lying to and otherwise deceiving the person being “tested,” and the American Polygraph Association doesn’t think it’s an ethical problem<\/a> that one of their past presidents, Ed Gelb, falsely passed himself off as a Ph.D.<\/a> in marketing his polygraph services. Incidentally, Gelb and Bailey collaborated in a television show called “Lie Detector” (which Bailey avers is a misnomer) that aired from 1982-83.<\/p>\n

Bailey, a life member of the American Polygraph Association, was disbarred<\/a> by the Supreme Court of Florida on 21 November 2001 for “multiple counts of egregious misconduct, including offering false testimony, engaging in ex parte communications, violating a client’s confidences, violating two federal court orders, and trust account violations, including commingling and misappropriation.” On 30 November 2012, the Maine Board of Bar Examiners rejected<\/a> Bailey’s application for admission.<\/p>\n

A report<\/a> by Seth Koenig of the Bangor Daily News<\/em> indicates that the purpose of this conference is not merely to “educate” individuals about the current usage of polygraphy in the United States but to advocate<\/em> its expansion:<\/p>\n

In Portland on Wednesday, Bailey said the polygraph test \u2014 often called a \u201clie detector test,\u201d although he said the term is inaccurate \u2014 is \u201cwoefully\u201d underutilized in Maine.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis very simple, and not very expensive, technique can save Maine law enforcement officials a lot of grief,\u201d Bailey told reporters. \u201cThe police spend a lot of time interviewing liars and chasing false suspects.\u201d<\/p>\n

During criminal investigations, polygraph testing can be used often, not necessarily to pinpoint the guilty party, but to rule out suspects and clear clutter in the case, he said. Bailey said that while individuals who \u201cshow deception\u201d on a polygraph test cannot be determined definitively to be lying \u2014 partial truths, among other responses, could set off the device without being outright false, he said \u2014 the test \u201ccan help prove when somebody is telling the truth.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you get a [\u2018no deception indicated\u2019 response], you should be off the list [of suspects for a crime],\u201d he said. \u201cIf you don\u2019t, we would just ask you some more questions.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The notion that a suspected criminal who passes a polygraph can be cleared is a dangerous delusion. Polygraphy has no scientific basis<\/a> and any reliance upon it is liable to misdirect investigations, as happened in the case of Green River Killer Gary Leon Ridgway,<\/a> who passed a polygraph “test” and killed again…and again. Moreover, polygraphy is vulnerable to simple, effective countermeasures that polygraph operators cannot detect<\/a>. These are documented in Chapter 4 of AntiPolygraph.org’s free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector<\/em><\/a> (1 mb PDF).<\/p>\n

Bailey also advocates releasing half of Maine’s prison population and placing them under “polygraph supervision”:<\/p>\n

Bailey also said extensive and regular polygraph usage in Maine would cut down dramatically on the recidivism in Maine prisons.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019ve got a lot of people in the state of Maine\u2019s prisons who don\u2019t need to be there,\u201d he said. \u201cWe can control them without supporting them [financially]. \u2026 There\u2019s no earthly reason why this type of polygraph supervision would not work in Maine.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bailey said the threat of regular polygraph tests has been shown to reduce repeat offenses. In states where the tests are used to regularly interview sex offenders after release, he said, repeat offense rates dropped from as high as 70 percent to as low as 19 percent.<\/p>\n

According to seminar coordinator Mark Teceno, the Maine Legislature in 2004 passed a law requiring polygraph testing to be part of the post-release treatment for sex offenders in the state. But Teceno said the testing is still not frequent or regular enough, and he added the measure should be expanded for use with individuals convicted of other crimes, as well.<\/p>\n

Bailey said he believes those steps would cut Maine\u2019s general inmate population from about 2,000 people to about 1,000 \u2014 with the difference from inmates released early under \u201cpolygraph supervision\u201d and those who are deterred from committing repeat offenses because of the testing.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf I\u2019m right, I\u2019d be willing to go on every single one of your stations and say, \u2018Nyah, nyah, na-nyah, nyah,\u2019\u201d he said. \u201cIf I have to eat crow, well, I\u2019ve got a strong stomach.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Again, owing to polygraphy’s lack of scientific underpinnings and vulnerability to easily-learned countermeasures, Bailey’s proposal would undermine public safety. To our knowledge, Bailey’s claim that post-conviction sex offender polygraph programs have reduced recidivism rates from 70 to 19 percent is unfounded. With respect to post-conviction polygraph screening, see criminology professor Jeffrey W. Rosky’s talk, “Examining Post-Conviction Polygraph Testing”:<\/p>\n