Stan_Smith:

The polygraph policy our government is pursuing constitutes unlawful search and seizure.  Our citizens are required to submit to an unreasonable close personal search of their bodily functions without cause or warrant.  In many cases, this is just to qualify for employment by the government.

If the results of this search by polygraph testing were by any means reliable, perhaps with a warrant such a search could be constitutional.  However, since it is proven that polygraph testing is so unreliable that almost half of those telling the truth fail, polygraph testing undoubtedly plants false evidence.  Thus, polygraph testing cannot be constitutional for it is an unreasonable search and seizure.

False evidence planted on citizens by polygraph testing violates our constitution further by placing, de-facto discriminatory labels upon our citizens.  Many citizens are denied employment and even freedom because of this false evidence.

Stan_Smith, can you give one example where a court has issued a warrant for a polygraphic guilt search and has granted admissibility of the test results in court solely based on the premise that polygraph examination is a reasonable and valid search and seizure?

Stan_Smith, can you give one example where a court has convicted a citizen solely based on the premise that polygraph examination is a reasonable and valid search and seizure?

Lloyd Ploense
PS:
I searched for your name online Stan Smith.  Wow MAN!  You really outnumber us!

Stan_Smith wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 9:52pm:


Stan, you are basically talking about a cost-benefits analysis.  Yes, the polygraph sometimes leads investigators down wrong paths, but the good that it does outweighs this overall.  Have you factored into your analysis the following costs:

(1) The bias of the polygraph against truthful examinees who know how it works;
(2) The resulting necessity that people be kept from knowing how it works;
(3) The resulting attempts to get people, including suspects and applicants, to believe silly statements and blindly accept authority; and
(4) The reduction in critical thought by police officers and government employees due to the elimination of honest, intelligent people who find out how the polygraph works and therefore have a very difficult time passing the exam.

Have you taken those into your cost-benefits analysis?  On my side, I have counted as benefits of the polygraph that fear of it can get applicants to make admissions that they otherwise would not and that others with unsavory events in their past can be discouraged from applying in the first place out of fear that the polygraph really would detect their deception.  I still find that the costs carry the preponderance of the weight, however.  Perhaps you can enlighten me otherwise.

Your allusion to Shakespeare, Stan, gives me hope that you might be capable of responding to my queries with something approaching originality and skill.  You certainly didn't learn the bard in polygraph class.  I had had hopes for nonombre, but he appears to be falling completely to pieces on us.   
In any event, the points that I make here I have made elsewhere on this forum.  For instance, here and here.  Please note that nothing that I have said has anything to do with countermeasures.  Please don't argue against them as I have not argued for them.  Also, logical fallacies will not be tolerated.  I look forward to discussing these matters with you, Stan.

Gosh Stan:

You seem to be correct on two matters:
1)      There do seem to be a lot of you;
2)      Polygraph testing and the use of the results is based on circular logic.

The first seems to be obvious.  Where did you find that YesMan character?  I hope there are not many more like him.  The second requires a bit of analysis.

When a citizen is asked to take a polygraph exam, refusal to do so either disqualifies a citizen from consideration for employment by the government (for certain positions) or indicates to LE officials that the citizen has something to hide.  Should a citizen not ‘pass’ that unreliable exam the citizen is construed to be untruthful.

All this is too reminiscent of scenes from Monty Python movies where circular logic is presented quite humorously.  It is not so funny Stan when there are real life consequences to the flawed practice of polygraph testing.

Now, a citizen cannot protest the false results of a flawed procedure without being wrongly accused of guilty fear.  Have you ever considered doing stand up comedy?

Lloyd Ploense

Sick_Stan:

Next, you will likely be claiming all who are in opposition to discrimination and injustice really are inferior and their opposition proves it.

The poisoning of our leftover wedding cake was not funny Sick_Stan (SS).  You are a very sick person to suggest it is.  You are a very sick person to suggest that we, the victims of this crime would have committed it.

You are indeed a very sick person SS.  If a rape victim came to be questioned by you in a polygraph exam, you would likely ask her if she raped herself distributing DNA evidence collected from some vile source upon herself to make the crime seem real.  With your sick sense of humor SS, I bet you would enjoy telling said victim she failed the polygraph exam.  In such circumstances, where a crime victim is falsely accused of criminal acts, polygraph testing yields far too many false positive results and we both know it SS.

So SS, please do not try to prove any points by taking jibes at crime victims.  Your behavior only indicates your lack of human understanding, compassion and morality SS.  Thus, you reveal yourself perfectly suited to your (seeming) profession, polygraphy.

Use your mind SS: palerider is an honest human faced with an almost impossible task.  Though both you and he believe in polygraphy, palerider does not couple flawed investigation techniques with flawed logic.  The greatest danger to our society is not from detection of deception technologies, but placing those instruments at the disposal of sick and deceptive persons such as you SS.

Lloyd

Ok, Lloyd,

Perhaps that last post was a bit harsh.  Let's look at your case logically.  In addition to your failed polygraph, what other evidence is there?  Who else could have done this to you?

You claimed possibly one of your ex wives.  According to your postings, one lives in California, the other in Connecticut.  I'm doubting California, and even Connecticut seems a bit far.  If not you, than who?  If your cake was really poisoned, then who did it Lloyd?  As I've said before, if you are TRULY innocent of this crime, I apologize.  But based on what you've told us, there doesn't seem to be any other explaination.   

And after all, you did fail the polygraph. (oh c'mon, THAT was funny)

Sane_Stan

My little broder geo hez in colleg! has ben readng this.  i lik his computr. Geo sez that he thinkz sombody poizond that cak to tont Loid. Geo sed to me Loid and the cops mite be looking for who think that funy.  Whats a ping stan?

YM

Good Morning YesMan:

Thank you for posting to this forum.  It is good to learn how to use a computer.  You are lucky to have a brother like Geo.

Please have your brother explain to you the meaning of a phrase used by Shakespeare in Henry VI, Part 2: "Mum's the word."

Lloyd Ploense

Lloyd:

10-4.  Spoke to my Bro.

Geo 4 YM