sarah wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 6:12pm:


Your posting is one reason why this website was created.

Sarah

Sheriffs are not in a position to call him guilty or innocent and a pollygrapf certainly can't deem him guilty or innocent since the results is not allowed in court. Can you investigate a pay off here? Do you have a doctor's examination report? The DA can't even consider a polygraph as evidence. You should definately keep pushing this with the DA. Finally, where is the other men in your family? If this happened in my family, the SOB would have already met his Waterloo.

BBernie wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 11:21pm:


The polygraph was absolutely NEVER intended for hiring or selection purposes; it was created to investigate specific events that already happened - just like the one this person describes.

As we can see, it can't even do what it was created to do properly. This poor woman's story is further evidence: Polygraphy doesn't work. Period, end of sentence, it doesn't work.

I'd definitely push it - call all the local papers, and don't let up. Sociopaths (which you suspect this person of being, and I completely agree) tend to pass polygraphs without blinking an eyelash, and this has been documented.

Katelyn Sack is correct also in that police have little to no patience with domestic violence and cases of sexual assault. They look for the easy way out - cops like to close cases as fast as they can for promotion points, and cases like yours don't close fast.

Don't let up. Keep at it. Call the State Police, write your local politicians; don't let this go.

sarah wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 6:12pm:



Triage:  with this post, I am migrating this thread to the top of the recent messages page in order to maximize the immediate input and support that Sarah gets.   

Sergeant1107 wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2009 at 8:33pm:



I'm not sure what the question at issue is for you.  But I know a logical fallacy when I see it.  Your issuance of anecdotal evidence to invalidate the dysfunctions of the criminal justice system in handling sexual and domestic violence cases constitutes such an error.   

Do police "have little to no patience with sa/dv cases and look for the easy way out"?  The numbers speak for themselves:  the arrest rate for rape is about 25% -- significantly lower than for most if not all other violent crimes.   

If the question at issue is instead the strawman argument you have changed it to, then it's still easy to rebut.  "Would failing to make an arrest in a sa/dv case, especially one involving a minor, cost cops their jobs?"  Based on the above data, if this were the case, there would be a mighty high turnover of police.  There is not.   

If the question at issue is the more on-topic, "Do police abuse polygraphs?" then it plainly misses the point.  Individual polygraph operators do not have to intentionally engage in abuse (although they may) for the effect to be abusive – just as individual police do not have to hate women to simply, systematically, not enforce laws prohibiting interpersonal violence.   

Finally, the evidence in Sarah's daughter's case is not at issue here.  The failure of the criminal justice system to swing into action on her behalf in no way invalidates the reality of her experiences, or makes her case a bizarre rarity.  On the contrary, the role of the polygraph in enabling this horrendous failure is consistent with the data on both police handling of sa/dv cases, and the data on governmental use of bad forensics to make bad justice.   

<<I was simply responding to a post.  The OP was making a statement that I, in my 23 years of law enforcement experience, have found to be untrue.  It is hardly a logical fallacy to refute an opinion with an opinion.>>

Misuse of anecdotal evidence (aka "the person who" fallacy) is one logical fallacy your posts continue to commit.   

<<The inference here is, of course, that the low clearance rate for sexual assaults is because the police put little effort into clearing such cases.  That is simply not the case.>>

It was the arrest rate, not the clearance rate, that was at issue.  We're not playing change the metric.   

<<Clearance rates for sexual assaults are generally lower than for those of other violent crimes because there is often a lack of compelling physical evidence.  Many cases are >>

"Compelling physical evidence" is defined differently by the scientific community than by the law enforcement community.  That's the issue.   

<<“acquaintance rape” or “date rape” and in such cases there is often no evidence other than the word of the victim as to whether such sexual contact was consensual or not.  Victims in general often make poor witnesses, and victims of sexual assaults are often the>>

Those stupid witnesses just can't do their jobs, and that's why police don't do theirs!  I don't think so.   

<<The problems that have been documented are actually the opposite of what you believe them to be.  Victim's advocates have complained for the past twenty years that cops are too quick to make arrests in domestic violence situations, often arresting both parties involved as soon as they establish there was a physical altercation.  The vast majority of >>

Asserting that domestic violence victims should not be arrested is obviously distinct from asking that laws against interpersonal violence be enforced.   

<<If there were evidence to arrest the suspect in the above-referenced case he would have been arrested.  I am in no way a fan of the polygraph, but in my opinion the polygraph>>

Are you in possession of the evidence in this case?  If not, your statement lacks factual basis and has the potential to hurt a victim who has come here for support.   

<<It is always a tragedy when a child is molested.  Cops have children, too, and every cop I know would go out of his or her way, and use every legal means at their disposal to build an airtight case and arrest a child molester.  The idea that cops let child molesters go because they don't feel like working the case is an insult to all the good cops in this country.  It has nothing to do with the polygraph.>>

Straw-man strikes again.  Did you miss the part where I pointed out that it doesn't take individual abuses (although they may happen) for the systematic abuse of bad forensic tools, and bad logic, to have aggregate discriminatory and unjust effects?  I'm not going to argue with you about whether or not cops hate child molesters and terrorists – seriously.   

Katelyn Sack wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2009 at 3:11pm:


I think you are mixing up your terms.  A logical fallacy is a mistaken conclusion reached via incorrect reasoning.  When one person posts an opinion (e.g. - “They look for the easy way out - cops like to close cases as fast as they can for promotion points, and cases like yours don't close fast.”) it is not a logical fallacy to respond with my own opinion.  You obviously disagree with my opinion, but that does mean that my opinion was reached through illogical or flawed reasoning.


Katelyn Sack wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2009 at 3:11pm:

The quote to which I was referring was this: “They look for the easy way out - cops like to close cases as fast as they can for promotion points, and cases like yours don't close fast.”  Closing a case is synonymous with clearing a case.  Cases can be closed in a variety of ways, only one of which is via arrest.


Katelyn Sack wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2009 at 3:11pm:
  

The issue I was addressing was the original poster’s assertion that cops don’t work hard on sexual assault and domestic violence cases because they prefer to close cases quickly in order to get promoted.  I believe you are correct in that the scientific community has a different idea of what is and what is not compelling physical evidence, but that really has little to do with the police.  Legislators make the laws, including those laws that define evidence.  For anyone who believes those laws are somehow lacking, that issue should be properly taken up with the legislature, not with the police.


Katelyn Sack wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2009 at 3:11pm:


I never said (nor do I think) that victims or witnesses of violent crimes are stupid.  Inability to recall relevant details after a physically violent, traumatic experience has little to do with intelligence.  It is, however, a very likely possibility for both victims and witnesses.  

Your post is actually a good example of a straw man argument, unlike my post you already misidentified as a straw man.  In your post you alter my assertion (that victims of violent crimes often make poor witnesses) into an indefensible declaration that “witnesses are stupid.”  It is easier to refute the “straw man” argument that witnesses are stupid than it is to refute the fact that victims of violent crimes often make poor witnesses because of the trauma they have suffered.



Katelyn Sack wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2009 at 3:11pm:


I agree.  However, my point was that over the past two decades the majority of complaints brought by women’s shelters and victim advocates has not been that cops are refusing to make arrests in domestic violence cases; it is that women were being arrested (along with their domestic partners) in cases where the woman claims she was only defending herself.  Since the OP made an assertion that the former was the case (“They look for the easy way out - cops like to close cases as fast as they can for promotion points, and cases like yours don't close fast.”) it was relevant and appropriate for me to post that information.



Katelyn Sack wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2009 at 3:11pm:


I am not in possession of the facts in this case.  I was simply posting my opinion that, since it is in fact illegal for a police officer with probable cause to believe a crime was committed in a domestic violence case to fail to make an arrest, I feel quite comfortable stating that there obviously was not sufficient probable cause in this case or there would have been an arrest. 

I don’t see how it could hurt a victim to tell them there was insufficient probable cause to make an arrest.  It seems far more likely to cause emotional turmoil in a victim if you lead them to believe that the suspect would have been arrested but for that suspect’s ability to lie successfully to the polygraph operator.  I think my assertion, that there was obviously insufficient probable cause to make an arrest before the polygraph, will actually comfort the victim to a greater degree because now she knows that the lack of arrest has nothing at all to do with passing or failing a “test” on a debunked piece of pseudoscientific equipment.


Katelyn Sack wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2009 at 3:11pm:


Once again, this is not a straw man argument.  The post to which I was responding asserted that: “They look for the easy way out - cops like to close cases as fast as they can for promotion points, and cases like yours don't close fast.”  I provided my opinion as to why I know that to be untrue, and then provided some examples as to why that is simply not the way cops think.  One such example was that it is a violation of state law to fail to act when there is probable cause to make an arrest, which makes it unlikely cops are going to fail to make an arrest in order to get promoted.  Another example was that cops have children, too, and feel just as terrible as the rest of civilized society when someone’s child is molested or attacked.  Because of that cops will put in tremendous effort towards building a case and making an arrest when a child is molested, which also goes to refute the OP’s assertion that the opposite is true because cops are more concerned about clearing cases than they are with prosecuting child molesters.