Batman wrote on Sep 30^th, 2002 at 9:45pm:


Here is quintessential bm-- disdain for all who do not think, act, or are employed like him. 

Since by law juries consist of a random cross-section of the populace (one's peers) what 'batman' is really saying is that we are ALL idiots, and that he holds the very people who employ him in lowest regard. His utter contempt for the Constitutionally-mandated jury system means he also is an oath-breaking malcontent, as he attacks here the very system he has sworn to protect and defend. Is it any wonder I have long disimissed his acerbic, foul, unprofessional attacks on me?

Quote:


So what you're saying is, the law cannot be interpreted intelligently by the lay person. If that's the case, how can a 'lay defendant' interpret it? After all, unless one of your fellow prosecutors or leos are on trial, wouldn't they too be too stupid-- i.e., 'incompetent') to stand trial?

Fortunately, as a law enforcement officer, you have NO SAY in how a jury arrives at its verdict. The proper and essential role of a jury is to apply the common sense and conscience of the community to the question of whether government is running roughshod over the rights of the individual -- a decision which no fewer than three articles of the Bill of Rights assure us shall never be left up to the sole discretion of some government-salaried judge and CERTAINLY not by you. 

You complain we're all idiots bm... The sad fact is that current voir dire procedures and jury oaths verge on jury-stacking, by screening out those who might represent the conscience of the community by refusing to enforce bad or misapplied laws -- just as the Salem witchcraft trials and later prosecutions under the infamous Fugitive Slave Act were finally ended by randomly selected juries that simply refused to enforce those bad laws. (For those of you who don't know what 'voire dire' means, it's the lengthy process in which judges and prosecutors stack our modern juries to make sure no one who disagrees with the government is allowed to be seated.)

Here is something I have no doubt you have never, ever read 'batman':

"We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or ... for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision."-- U.S. vs. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002, 1006

Or how about this, have you ever read this?

[the jury] has an unreviewable and irreversible power ... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge ... The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge. Most often commended are the 18th century acquittal of Peter Zenger of seditious libel, on the plea of Andrew Hamilton, and the 19th century acquittals in prosecutions under the fugitive slave law."-- U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, 1139

<snip OJ rant>

Quote:


A good criminal defense attorney, upon reading your above spittle-ridden diatribe, would subpoena IP Logs, identify you, and then forever after-- whenever you testified from now until you were fired from your job, submit same for the jury's consideration.

Breeze,

You write:

Quote:


And so are we are.  If one is to engage in such foolish behavior (making decisions based on polygraph results), we should all pray for blind luck.  Because there are only two determinate possibilities with polygraph lie tests (DI, NDI, one of which is correct), I suppose we will continue to see such sporadic reports evidencing such luck and the laws of probability.  Unfortunately a large number of people will be victimized in order to claim these victories that (as you allude to and would have us believe otherwise) might well be obtained through other less harmful means, i.e., thorough investigation and competent interview/interrogation in the absence of the polygraph charade.

Anon
Even though I told you what the party line comeback would be
(do a better investigation, wont need polygraph) You still used it on me.  Since I am forced to repeat myself often here-I will just tell you again that the victim was so erratic, and the offender had such access that it was stalemate.  Are you going to call us incompetent because a viable LE tool was used in a professional way that elicited a full confession?  You will not tell me next that it was a false confession will you?

Will a polygraph opponent be open minded enough to admit that the device functioned exactly as designed, gave information to interviewers not otherwise available, and got a sick rapist off the street in way not possible (in this case at least) without polygraph? 
Those that actually have working knowledge in the areas that you are speculating about know this random event is anything but.

Breeze,

CQT polygraphy has no validity as a diagnostic tool.  Only a fool would use it assuming that it did.  Assuming you are not such, you are left with using it to bluff a (hopefully) guilty suspect into making admissions/confessions.  This ruse, however, requires that you misrepresent the technique as a valid diagnostic procedure to the subject/examinee in order to obtain that which you seek.  The problem with this lie (I'm actually not too concerned about the ethics of this specific lie but with the required logistics for success) is that it depends upon widespread, if not universal, ignorance on the part of a potential examinee population.   

The sort of misinformation and disinformation that is required to bluff the guilty is of necessity (for the benefit of the innocent wrongly accused of deception) being countered on a daily basis on this site and elsewhere.  I strongly suggest you find yourself a better play toy that will neither injure the innocent nor require you to engage in these sorts of pathetic embarrassing discussions in your attempt to bluff the guilty through the maintenance of widespread ignorance.  You ask will the polygraph, as currently used, on occasion produce results coinciding with truth and  (as apparently happened in this case) outcomes that you and I would mutually want (the guilty implicated, the innocent exonerated)?  The answer, of course, is yes, but only in the midst of great tribulation and trauma for many citizens and for society in general due to the rampant error of this nonsense in the hands of those who fall prey to their own bluffs and misrepresentations about technique validity.

Batman wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2002 at 9:11pm:


Perhaps you should attempt to present some facts, Batman, before assuming such.  And no, the anecdotes you folks dig up do not constitute scientific evidence of the polygraph's validity.

I always assumed criminal investigators had a good grasp of scientific procedure and logical deduction.  That notion has been badly shaken by what I've seen here -- I guess "CSI" really is just a TV show

Quote:


It's really not attractive to see a caped crusader reduced to incoherent babbling.  Tough week on the beat, BM?

Skeptic

Skeptic,

I think there is no material argument that the polygraph works to a very great extent because people are kept ignorant of it's secrets. Pro polygraph persons often make the point that the information provided on anti-polygraph sites is potentially harmful since it may allow criminals that would otherwise be put away to avoid discovery. They have a point. The problem is that it becomes impossible to debate something if it is maintained that it's working mechanisms should not be disclosed if they are also necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the tool.


I have a very visceral negative reaction to the concept that people must be kept ignorant, or worse, that the validity of a tool should be exagerated in order to maximize the value of the tool. That visceral reaction doesn't make less valid the ignorance is best argument.

However, safety and freedom are frequently not congruent and choices will be made. Personally, I favor Franklin's bias in this regard.

-Marty

Marty wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2002 at 4:59am:


Keeping information from widespread dissemination is not evil in and of itself, but in our free and open society, there generally needs to be a pretty good reason.

As Dr. Barland has pointed out, certain tests such as the MMPI work best if most people know little about the test.  Fair enough.  But the MMPI is a scientifically valid test.  It has been established as such through extensive peer-reviewed double-blind research.

In the polygraph's case, we have a "test" that has not been scientifically validated, its "theory" is hotly disputed, and frequent examples of abuse and/or inaccurate results are surfacing. Yet the public generally holds polygraph testing as synonymous with "lie detection."

So the question becomes: "is secrecy regarding the polygraph designed to preserve a valid test's accuracy, or is it designed to preserve ignorance and false impressions about a process that is really snakeoil?"

This is the reason why, so often, we see posters on this site requesting peer-reviewed research into the polygraph's validity.  In the absence of such, maintaining ignorance regarding the polygraph seems intended to preserve cash flow, the esteem of polygraphers and the ability of certain unscrupulous people to psychologically bludgeon a subject without counsel, rather than preserve the validity of the test.

Skeptic