|
Author
|
Topic: Effects of this NJ decision
|
detector
Administrator
|
posted 03-06-2009 05:07 PM
  
I'm not sure what to think about this court decision and how much an effect it could have, just looking for other perspectives.
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-13/123623081274770.xml&coll=1 ------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 03-06-2009 05:46 PM
I'd like to read the actual decision to better understand it, but it's not great for polygraph. The big issue seems to be one of needing competent counsel in such a case. Think about it: The State (through the polygraph examiner) said it was 100% accurate, when we all know better. He might have told the defendant that before they stipulated to the exam, but we don't know from this.What you have is an examiner making a false claim. Just because he doesn't know of an error doesn't mean he didn't make one. I don't know of any I've made either. I'm not naive enough to think I haven't made any. Instead, I think back and wonder which ones were the errors. Once again, we're our own worst enemies. NJ now has its Law Court saying polygraph's reliability is questionable - something they had to say in response to the 100% claim. Now, polygraph won't likely be used in NJ trials for some time - if ever. The decision carries no weight in any other state; although, other states could adopt its reasoning. You've got to wonder how things would have went if scientific testimony on polygraph was offered instead. Would the Court have then felt the jury wasn't persuaded by unreliable testimony? You can't tell a jury that a test is 100% when it isn't, and then not have that info rebutted (as an attorney would have done). It's hard to know what could have happened, but this never should have occurred it would seem. IP: Logged |
ebvan
Member
|
posted 03-06-2009 05:50 PM
Clever, but ill conceived.Asking an unrepresented examinee to stipulate to the use of polygraph results at a trial in which charges have yet to be filed looks like a poorly conceived attempt at an end run around the rules. I'm just a bit shocked that a prosecuter would have tried it. I can't conceive a logical thought process that thought something like that would accomplish anything but smear polygraph. This decision will have a negative effect on polygraph, but it shouldn't. Polygraph wasn't at fault here. The form they got this guy to sign and the thought process that created it is at fault. Polygraph didn't do anything wrong,It didn't fail here. but it certainly appears an examiner may have. This was then compounded by the prosecutor and the court of original jurisdiction. ------------------
Ex scientia veritas IP: Logged |
Buster
Member
|
posted 03-06-2009 08:40 PM
Every cop in the state will email me that article. NJ just sent a directive out that no victim of sexual assault shall be subjected to a polygraph.I got 30 phone calls that day. How important was it too Milgram (AG)? --- it was #2009-1.This state is anti-polygraph in general. Although most of us do not like testing sex assault victims anyway. We all know its not 100%,very few people in this state buy that its any more then a tool. IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 03-06-2009 09:17 PM
Dr. Horvath once asked me this question: "What's a victim?" Think about it for a few minutes - but that's a topic for another time.IP: Logged |
Buster
Member
|
posted 03-07-2009 08:59 AM
I think I see what you are getting at....also the victim is actually the accused (one with the finger pointing at him) if the case is less then 100 percent true.(oops, theres that 100% again) IP: Logged |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
