Batman,
You write:
Quote:I bow to your knowledge and experience when it comes to showing disdain. You display disdain for the Law Enforcement community with your assumptions and rantings about illegally obtained confessions.
It is you, my friend, who described the average American as a "schmuck." I've made no similar characterization of the law enforcement community. I don't see how my comments regarding the risks of false confessions (not necessarily illegally obtained), and the benefits of recording all interrogations, amounts to disdain for the law enforcement community.
Quote:You display disdain for the Government with your protestations about its reliance on polygraph, which you know full well is not entirely true.
What is not entirely true? You seem to be asserting that I'm lying about something. What?
I certainly do hold disdain for our government's reliance on polygraphy, but that does not translate into disdain for the U.S. Government in general, whose constitution I have sworn an oath to support and defend. With regard to the U.S. Government's reliance on polygraph screening, I share the sentiments of
Dr. David Dearborn, a physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who said at the Department of Energy's sham public hearings on polygraph policy, "If you choose to implement this astrology surrogate, and to treat us with such deep disrespect, do not confuse our contempt for arrogance."
Quote:You diplay disdain for the entire legal system when you profess that teaching countermeasures is good for the whole even if it allows a few criminals to escape justice.
Again, you make a bizarre and entirely unwarranted leap of logic in supposing that my position regarding the ethics of making polygraph countermeasure information publicly available somehow amounts to "disdain for the entire legal system." (Note that our legal system, in the main, holds polygraphy in low regard.)
Quote:And all this disdain simply because you couldn't pass a polygraph examination.
Not true. My disdain ("contempt" is an apter word) for polygraphy is based on much more than my personal experience. It is based on extensive research (see the bibliography of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for a partial listing of sources I've consulted) and the knowledge that great harm has come to individuals, national security, and public safety as a result of misplaced institutional reliance on polygraphy.
Quote:You sit in your comfy little cubby pumping out your retoric [sic] with now [sic] concern as to the damage you do.
I believe that when the pros and cons are weighed, the public interest is served by the truth about polygraphy (including the availability of effective countermeasures that polygraphers cannot detect) being made known. Note that the countermeasure information available on AntiPolygraph.org was not invented here. If we're compelling the law enforcement community to confront the reality that polygraph "testing" is easily countermeasured, then I think the public interest is also served thereby.
Quote:When I speak about the legal system I back that up with over 24 years of pratical experience. When I speak about the juries that are manned by idiots I draw upon first hand experience. How about this one? A man shoots his wife with a shotgun, right to the heart from about 10 feet. She's dead before she hits the floor. He claims the weapon "just went off". The weapon is tested in every manner possible and the only way it "just goes off" is when the trigger is pulled. He is reinterviewed and admits to having his finger on the trigger, but when he was lifting the weapon up by the barrel he pulls forward, thus applying "reverse" pressure to the trigger. Bang, a shot straight to the heart. When he testifies in court he says the weapon's trigger gets caught in a blanket and it goes off. Now the jury is fully aware of his other versions, yet they aquit him. What classification of idiots do they fall within?
It [sic] situations like this that lead one to the conclusion that for the most part juries are made up of idiots. If this is disdain then so be it, at least I come by it through real life experiences....
Let me see. Your line of reasoning seems to run roughly as follows: a jury concludes that reasonable doubt exists as to a defendant's guilt of the crime with which he has been charged. You disagree. Therefore, the jurors are idiots. Therefore, "juries for the most part are made up of idiots." (Q.E.D.)
Quote:Other than your poor experience with polygraph and your uncanny ability to pull up inane facts via internet research, from what do you formulate all you disdain George?
Again, I refer you to the bibliography of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for examples of the sources on the basis of which I've reached my opinions regarding polygraphy and polygraph policy.
Quote:As for my colleagues, I don't assume to speak for them...
Oh. I see. Forgive me for having concluded something different when you wrote, "So the reason we don't record all interrogations is simply that juries for the most part are made up of idiots. Like it or not, that is the way it is.
Attornies [sic] on both sides know this, Law Enforcement Officers know this, and judges know this" (emphasis added).
Quote:...much unlike yourself...
For example?
Quote:You don't fool anyone but that little group of small minded individuals who hang on your every word, and yourself of course. How's that for disdain?
In what way do you believe that I am attempting to fool anyone?
To conclude, I don't think your opinions regarding the intelligence of jurors amount to a credible argument against the routine recording of interrogations, for reasons I addressed in my earlier post (and to which you did not respond).
Perhaps you'd care to address this question I asked you earlier: Apart from criminal interrogations, would you object to the routine audio- or videotaping of all employment-related polygraph interrogations? (If so, why?)
Pages: 
Who's Using Polygraph (Read 61927 times)
