Quote:WW: Perhaps you are in the opinion of your peers, an excellent examiner.
But then all the ex's that post here claim not to exercise the behaviours that the AP folk
continually complain about.
The big issue for me is - and i'm sure you expect nothing diff from me by now except the same old song - is that p/g is just wrong. It is nothing more than a prop used to obtain confessions.
It would be morally more acceptable to say, "lets use the old p/g trick on this perp to get a confession"
But then suspects would all get to know the trick and it wouldnt work anymore and so the p/g club
trot out BS research etc etc to continue trying to fool society that the p/g can reliably be utilised to detect deception. but it can't. Therein lies the rub. 86%, 88%, 92% 96%, (i think the APA has a %
generator) is simply not good enough. Only 100% reliability is good enough.
Yes I know you put sickos and pillpoppers away - but you could do even better with solid investigation
techniques and solid scientific, hard evidence. Polygraph is the lazy mans detective tool.
If you're gonna BS folks, why make such a production out of it??
Just use the card trick without the poly. Or magic lie-powder. Or Oscar.
I wish that you and your posse could put away a 1000 drug dealers and sexual deviants every single day. But, when you falsely accuse 1 person, then your methodology is flawed and you are as morally
corrupt as a drug dealer.
Human collateral is unacceptable.
If you think that you've never called a false positive, then you're just plain stupid. Sorry.
Sure, p/g is a career. It gives some a good living. So does loan-sharking.
Has my rant made you think? I hope so. Even a micron of doubt would be promising.
Fact----falsely accused and convicted criminals are incarcerated as a result of "solid scientific evidence and techniques" without polygraph---make no mistake about that '04. Fingerprints?--not 100% Eye witness accounts?---please, the worst and most unreliable yet. DNA---this is great but the contamination factor is overwelming, not to mention that many crimes are ill-suited for DNA. What's left 1904? Interrogation---also filled with treachery, and fortunately, American courts are giving less and less credibility toward confessions each year. Physical Anthropology?---a great science if applicable in post mordum cases, but far from perfect. Forensic Dentistry----again, priceless in murder cases. What's left----chemical analysis and a few others that are valuable in certain forensic dterminations. But what about the following crimes;
Frotage---eye witness
Molestation (small digital, rubbing) (eye witness and rarely medical tests concurr)
Rape with condom---eye witness (medical does little for intent of rape)
Peepers and flashers ------(eye witness)
Fraud----eye witness, phone records (soft target investigation points) and distorted video on occasion.
Assault----eye witness, medical, weapon possession (rarely obtained before disposal)
Kidnap-----eye witness
Internal theft-----possession of stolen property evidence (rarely found before conversion)/eye witness
Espionage---------eye witness (very rare----or possession of contraband---rarely found before conversion)
Unauthorized release of classified docs-----see above
All of the above crimes and many more have very little
stand alone "solid scientific investigative evidence techniques." I can appreciate your disappointment in polygraph ----but it is yet a strong tool of investigation, and touting it as a prop or otherwise chips away at the field of preventing residivistic crimes---it hurts people. I too am very concerned with applicant screening polygraph modalities---and I am inclined to be suspicious of those modalities, so I don't rn those tests anymore. I have a feeling that you could be more inclined to specificlly target polygraph in applicant screening for LE, rather than the whole field---but I could be wrong. I secretly look forward to 100% methods and due to not being in love with any career per se, I will welcome better methods as it will make my kids safer yet.
regards
Paradiddle