Public Servant: I feel some (including you) are missing an important conclusion of the NAS regarding Specific Incident testing. That is, results are "well below perfect." To me, that means "well below 100%." So...maybe one quarter of the time, people telling the truth are falsely accused of lying? That's certainly "well above chance" (50% accuracy), but would you like to be forced to take that chance on something that can really impact your life? Now, here's another crucial tidbit that an LE officer should know. POLYGRAPH EXAMS ARE NOT ALWAYS VOLUNTARY!!! If you are on probation FOR ANY REASON, your probation officer may require you to submit to a polygraph. Although the results of a polygraph are not admissable in court, they are admissable as evidence in a probation violation hearing, where the judge must simply determine it is LIKELY that you violated your probation, not that you violated it beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, agreed, when one is convicted of a crime, one is justifiably forced to give up some of the rights guaranteed by our constitution. HOWEVER, is being subject to the whims of unreliable ("well below perfect") science in determining our fate really consistent with this? My fiance is on probation for a nonviolent crime. He was falsely accused of threatening someone with a gun. (He does not own or have access to a handgun, the accuser is a homeless con man that tried to extort money from us, and the guy served time a few years ago in CA for, coincidence, waving a flare gun in someone's face) Rather than truly investigate, the PO required a polygraph, and my guy reacted w/more physiological stress to the relevant questions than to a poorly constructed control question. (Did you point a gun at the guy vs. Have you ever lied to law enforcement about a major crime?) The PO is going forward with a PV based on the poly and accusation alone. (He did no further investigation). My fiance faces prison time over this, which will assuredly destroy our lives and livelihood. (and our ability to pay taxes and educate his sons - for you pragmatists out there) Sure, we're just one sad anecdotal example of the evils of frequent false positives. but.... Answer me this: Is society really better off with someone off the streets who may have pointed a gun at someone (a test with "Well below perfect" reliability said so)? In all honesty, if I had known about probation requirements and the unreliability of polygraphs, I wish I had sold my car and given the man the $8500 he attempted to extort from us. Instead, we trusted the myth that the poly is accurate, and that "the truth will out". LE officers - is that really your interpretation of the constitution? If you mess up and find yourself on probation, you had better pay off anyone who tries to extort from you because if you don't, they could make a false accusation. Then you'll be forced to take a poly, which you have say a 20-40% chance of flunking even if you're honest. That's not my America. IS it yours?? Our one chance is to perhaps take a 2nd poly. It's been offered by a prominent academic. However, I know my guy well. With all that we'd have riding on it, I can't fathom a control question that would stress him out more than "Did you point a gun at that guy?" (A requirement for "passing" the test.) How can I trust a guy who doesn't even know him to come up with one?
|