context_title
context_text
|
Topic Summary - Displaying 5 post(s). |
Posted by: orolan
Posted on: Sep 23rd, 2003 at 11:22pm
|
Mark & Quote Quote
|
|
Mr. Truth,
The courts allow polygraphs for sex offenders because the legislature enacted a legal and binding statute authorizing it. The courts are powerless in this situation, except that they can exercise discretion when a sex offender is brought before them on a probation revocation due to a failed polygraph.
|
Posted by: Mr. Truth
Posted on: Sep 23rd, 2003 at 8:23pm
|
Mark & QuoteQuote
|
|
I like paragraph 62:
Experienced examiners could not detect counter-measures in the lab study.
But get them in the field, and boy-oh-boy, they are experts, sleuths, your regular Sherlock Holmes at detecting them (so they say).
So why does the Court give its tacit approval of the use of polygraphs for, to use an example, sex offenders? If the test is bullshit, for lack of a better technical term at this time, why is it allowed for anyone at all? What about the high failure rates for law enforcement candidates? It is simply mind-boggling that anyone in the government who deals with national security would put any credence in this farce. The only thing polygraphy has going for it is time - all the years of people believing it works, it has become an urban legend that can't (yet, anyway) be dispelled.
How many court rulings and scientific studies is it going to take to put an end to this charade?
|
Posted by: Marty
Posted on: Sep 23rd, 2003 at 7:42pm
|
Mark & QuoteQuote
|
|
George,
Thanks for that post. It's one of the clearest opinions I have read with an excellent overview and clear description of the polygraph.
I was also struck by paragraph #61.
-Marty
|
Posted by: Anonymous
Posted on: Sep 23rd, 2003 at 3:08pm
|
Mark & QuoteQuote
|
Quote:...New Mexico is the only state in the United States where polygraph evidence has been routinely admitted in criminal cases. The New Mexico Supreme Court recently directed District Judge Richard J. Knowles to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding polygraph testing. His report, (New Mexico Supreme Court No. 27,915) may be downloaded as an 869 kb PDF file here: http://antipolygraph.org/litigation/nm-27915/knowles-polygraph-findings. pdf After reviewing a large body of documentary evidence and hearing testimony from experts, Judge Knowles concluded that "[t]he results of polygraph testing are not sufficiently reliable for admissibility in courts in New Mexico." ... As opposed to what one would be led to conclude from a perusal of the postings coming from our friend, the Breeze, Judge Knowles gives reason to hope that there actually is at least a modicum of critical thinking eminating from the Southwest.
|
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Sep 23rd, 2003 at 2:19pm
|
Mark & QuoteQuote
|
New Mexico is the only state in the United States where polygraph evidence has been routinely admitted in criminal cases. The New Mexico Supreme Court recently directed District Judge Richard J. Knowles to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding polygraph testing. His report, (New Mexico Supreme Court No. 27,915) may be downloaded as an 869 kb PDF file here: http://antipolygraph.org/litigation/nm-27915/knowles-polygraph-findings.pdf After reviewing a large body of documentary evidence and hearing testimony from experts, Judge Knowles concluded that "[t]he results of polygraph testing are not sufficiently reliable for admissibility in courts in New Mexico."
|
