The Polygraph Place

Thanks for stopping by our bulletin board.
Please take just a moment to register so you can post your own questions
and reply to topics. It is free and takes only a minute to register. Just click on the register link


Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
Professional Issues - Private Forum for Examiners ONLY
Litigation and the Truth

Post New TopicPost A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic: Litigation and the Truth
keithpoly
Member
posted 09-27-2007 01:17 PM Click Here to See the Profile for keithpoly Click Here to Email keithpoly Edit/Delete Message
Polygraph is vastly under-utilized, especially on witnesses who testify. I believe that before there can be justice, first there must be truth. Deception and perjury among witnesses is pandemic and totally compromises the finding of fact. Personally I have this very inherent fear that mendacity is not uncovered most of the time in court by opposing counsel. It takes great skill in cross-examination to unmask the liar and despite the TV perception that this occurs regularly, I contend quite the opposite.

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 09-27-2007 01:58 PM Click Here to See the Profile for stat Edit/Delete Message
Welcome! So, do you have any ideas to help eliminate trial obfuscations by witnesses?

IP: Logged

sackett
Moderator
posted 09-27-2007 02:49 PM Click Here to See the Profile for sackett Click Here to Email sackett Edit/Delete Message
I agree! But you forgot one thing regarding judicial procedings. Truth is only the desire and goal of one side, in a courtroom...

Therefore, to change the environment which leads to those behaviors, you'll have to change the legal system first.


Jim

IP: Logged

keithpoly
Member
posted 09-27-2007 03:00 PM Click Here to See the Profile for keithpoly Click Here to Email keithpoly Edit/Delete Message
I have been involved in litigation myself and been the victim of deception and perjury. In civil trials it is almost unheard of that perpetrators of such are ever punished. The courts belong to the judges and I am quite sure they would not welcome any instrusion such as polygraph into their chambers. They are still of the notion that it is up to the jury to find fact and that Frye v. the U.s. is still the controlling case. The lack of sanctions undoubtably encourages perjurers to continue unabated. Then there is the issue of suborning perjury by attorneys by knowingly allowing those who lie to take the stand, under oath. The only solution is to crackdown on these people and when sufficient evidence presents itself to indicate a violation of the oath has transpired, to go after those offenders and prosecute them. I believe the polygraph profession should be at the forefront of this battle to maintain the integrity of our justice system. Like I stated before, without truth there can be no justice.

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 09-27-2007 04:25 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C Click Here to Email Barry C Edit/Delete Message
That's where paired-testing comes in handy.

IP: Logged

J L Ogilvie
Moderator
posted 09-27-2007 06:11 PM Click Here to See the Profile for J L Ogilvie Click Here to Email J L Ogilvie Edit/Delete Message
Precisely Barry, to eliminate perjured testimony.

I haven't heard much lately about the acceptance or use of paired testing. Have you or anyone else?

Jack

------------------

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 09-27-2007 06:23 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C Click Here to Email Barry C Edit/Delete Message
It's still new. I presented on it at APA, and I know a number of people were interested in completing the scoring portion, so we'll see if it takes off. I've been asked to do a webinar on the topic too - in November. My hope is that interest will grow.

There are some discussions to come up with a means of certification / proficiency much like other professional organizations, and I think that's going to be important to make this work. Currently, only the Veritas Center (Jon Marin) offers a certification program, but I don't know if they're getting much business.

IP: Logged

sackett
Moderator
posted 09-27-2007 10:12 PM Click Here to See the Profile for sackett Click Here to Email sackett Edit/Delete Message
All,

I understand your point, but being the skeptic that I am (sorry, I'm just a poor realist), how exactly would paired-testing stop or inhibit perjury?

Jim

IP: Logged

Taylor
Member
posted 09-27-2007 10:24 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Taylor Click Here to Email Taylor Edit/Delete Message
I scored the 100 exams to assure I met scoring proficency. It takes some time but well worth it. Krapohl sent me a disc so I could score the charts as it fit my schedule. I recently received my letter stating I met the accuracy standards and inconclusive restrictions under the Marin Protocol. I didn't realize there was or will be a certification process other than DACA's QC program. Barry, if you get more information on the possibility of certification will you please post it here or email me. Thanks Taylor

[This message has been edited by Taylor (edited 09-27-2007).]

IP: Logged

rnelson
Member
posted 09-28-2007 12:39 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rnelson Click Here to Email rnelson Edit/Delete Message
Certification should really be administered by a separate but dedicated entity with no other purpose in life.

That is how its done in other professions. The testing entity's mission is to attend to the standards established by the entity that sets standards, and deterimine who qualifies. They do not set the standards themselves. Nor do they provide any oversight, enforcement, or response to complaints. The only purpose is to determine who qualifies. To do otherwise, would be to complicate the mission with other agenda. The professionals at those agencies are not in the business of selling anything that is in competition with those who seek qualification, as that would constitute a conflict of interest (market competition).

We should think about doing this right.


r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)


IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 09-28-2007 02:23 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C Click Here to Email Barry C Edit/Delete Message
Ray,

There is movement in that direction as we speak.

Taylor,

The Veritas Center is doing the certifying. Don should have sent your scoring results to Jon Marin. Next, you need to send a tape to Jon, which has to be reviewed in order to complete the second portion of the process. I haven't heard from Jon in some time, and I know some have expressed concern that they never got their certificates from him. I'll try him again to check the status of things.

The downside here is that the Veritas Center (Jon Marin's business) does the certifying, and then that same business uses those examiners to run tests. Jon was looking to get the ABA or some other organization on board to fix some of the "glitches" in the system, but this is still in its infancy.

If you want, call me and I'll give you more details.

IP: Logged

Taylor
Member
posted 09-28-2007 02:40 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Taylor Click Here to Email Taylor Edit/Delete Message
Don did send it to Marin. I received my results last week. I didn't realize there was a second portion. I am sure he is busy so I will wait a bit. Thanks Taylor

IP: Logged

rnelson
Member
posted 09-28-2007 02:53 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rnelson Click Here to Email rnelson Edit/Delete Message
Barry,

Its not the same at all, if the Veritas Center is in the business of providing examiners, providing examinations, or even referring examiners. Those activities involve mission statements that are divergent from the singular objective of qualification - just as the setting of standards and oversight of problem professional/cases/train-wrecks represents a distinct set of mission objectives.

The very best way to assure an ethically unencumbered process is to insist on singularity of mission - a single mission of activity.

Secondarily, it would be preferable to have persons involved in then entity's leadership who don't have financial or marketing objectives in the field. For example, most states licensing boards for mental health practitioners include non-professional members of the community - often leaders from other realms of business. Even the Colorado SOMB includes board appointees who are not in the business of treating offenders - judges, prosecutors, defenders, victim's advocates, social services administrators, and school officials.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)


IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 09-28-2007 02:59 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C Click Here to Email Barry C Edit/Delete Message
Ray,

I didn't say it was the same. I said it's being discussed. Right now, the Veritas Center is all we have, and I pointed out the "downside" of the current system, which is one of the motives for doing it as you suggest. It's a major endeavor, though, and it'll be a little while I suspect.

Taylor,

You might be waiting a long time. Jon doesn't do the video reviews, another examiner will, so if you want to do that portion, I can give you my suggestions.

IP: Logged

sackett
Moderator
posted 09-28-2007 03:44 PM Click Here to See the Profile for sackett Click Here to Email sackett Edit/Delete Message
Barry, et al,

now that we agree there is a process for being "certified" in paired testing and we can get another paper to hang on our walls......how exactly are we going to prevent or inhibit witness perjury...???


Jim

[This message has been edited by sackett (edited 09-28-2007).]

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 09-28-2007 04:00 PM Click Here to See the Profile for stat Edit/Delete Message
My thoughts exactly------more trophies.

IP: Logged

keithpoly
Member
posted 09-28-2007 04:17 PM Click Here to See the Profile for keithpoly Click Here to Email keithpoly Edit/Delete Message
In regards to Sackett's last comments regarding how does one inhibit the propensity towards perjury, the Bench must first admit that there is a problem. The Bench must also be willing to impose applicable sanctions. Perjury is a very serious offense. In civil matters perjury, if material enough, can change the outcome of a trial and cost someone thousands of dollars. How often in civil cases is someone charged with perjury? Does the Bench really care if it's just about money and not one's freedom?

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 09-28-2007 04:35 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C Click Here to Email Barry C Edit/Delete Message
Read the ASTM standard or the papers written by Marin on POLYGRAPH, or go to the Veritas Center website and read what's there. It's a start.

IP: Logged

J L Ogilvie
Moderator
posted 09-28-2007 05:05 PM Click Here to See the Profile for J L Ogilvie Click Here to Email J L Ogilvie Edit/Delete Message
Jim, the idea behind paired testing is to have two witnesses diametrically opposed in there testimony only one of which could be right.

A different examiner would test each subject. Both examiners being certified to a degree of competency of 85% or better. The resulting outcome can be mathamatically proven to be better than 98% accurate and the subject failing the test will not be allowed to testify. Therefore eliminating his perjured testimony.

That is a thumb nail sketch.

Astm has a standard for paired testing. We have been working on a standard of who the certifying committee would be made up of and what the process would entail. A rough draft was written by three of us two or three years ago but it was given to another party to get input and it hasn't been heard from again. It got lost in the shuffle. We are working on it and "no" it was not me who misplaced it, that person will remain nameless.

Jack

------------------

IP: Logged

sackett
Moderator
posted 09-28-2007 07:45 PM Click Here to See the Profile for sackett Click Here to Email sackett Edit/Delete Message
I KNOW, I KNOW!!!!!

IP: Logged

All times are PT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New TopicPost A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Polygraph Place

copyright 1999-2003. WordNet Solutions. All Rights Reserved

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.39c
Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 1999.