|
Author
|
Topic: Interesting letter to editor on our side
|
Barry C
Member
|
posted 06-01-2006 07:38 AM
  
Here's an interesting newspaper letter from a Duke University law professor that is pro polygraph.Here's the link:
http://www.newsobserver.com/580/story/445161.html IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 06-01-2006 08:38 AM
Barry,Nice letter! It would never fly here in California. We are prohibited from even asking a sexual assault victim if they are willing to take a polygraph exam. Ted IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 06-01-2006 09:27 AM
Yeah, that's a tough one. We do know that polygraphing victims results in more false positives, and that only adds to the (true) victim's trauma. I will do those tests, but I carefully choose when and what cases I will do. When I do them, I do a statement test (as suggested by Stan Abrams in one of his books) in order to avoid asking RQs that require bringing the traumatic memories and the accompanying to the surface.I hope the author of the letter is aware of that since he is educating future lawyers (both prosecutors and defense attorneys). IP: Logged |
jrwygant
Member
|
posted 06-01-2006 01:05 PM
It's a moot point in Oregon as well. Asking a victim to take a polygraph as a condition of proceeding with prosecution has been illegal here for at least 20 years. It happened after a DA's office in one of our larger counties began routinely testing all alleged rape victims.I don't have any problem with prohibiting victim exams. They have most often been used with rape cases, while we rarely consider testing victims of burglary, robbery, assault, etc. Testing any victim pretty much stands our system of justice on its head and is not well supported by polygraph research, which has focused on testing suspects. IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 06-01-2006 01:47 PM
I should have mentioned this before. We only test "victims" who, after investigation, turn out to be suspects of filing false reports. I suspect you still can't do that in either place.Almost all of those I've seen here have been success stories in which the "victims" have recanted after failing. One case I did resulted in a two-count rape indictment being dismissed - which might have been a successful prosecution. (In that case, the (rape) suspect had already passed a polygraph exam conducted by his attorney's examiner.) I agree with you Jim. We're on thin ice from a research perspective as there is little out there, and what there is doesn't bode well for the practice, and that's a place we may be wise to shy away from. From a moral standpoint, there are times when justice was served, but without more research, we don't know what the cost is. I have heard of exams in arsons in which we believe the "victim" is actually the one who lit the flame. By the way all, if you're not a subscriber to Jim's newsletter (Polygraph News and Views), you're missing out. It's always full of great information that keeps you thinking of how to improve yourself as an examiner and polygraph as a profession. I think you can go to his website for info? IP: Logged |
john fyffe
Member
|
posted 06-02-2006 12:23 PM
Never being able to test victim's means no test of those who burn cars, homes or anyone else who wants to cheat an insurance company.As for test sex victims in KY there are guidelines that have to be followed. Investigator can not use polygraph to decide if a case will go forward. To test a victim the investigator must believe that the victim is being deceptive and must back this up in writting to the examiner with a signiture. Also can test the victim if the suspect has passed a polygraph test. IP: Logged |
ebvan
Member
|
posted 06-02-2006 02:14 PM
In my opinion, the only reason to ever test a victim of sexual assault is to prevent a miscarriage of justice resulting from a suspect being wrongfully accused and possibly convicted.I will only agree to test a sexual assault victim if all of the following criteria are met. 1. Suspect has been identified and has already passed his/her polygraph test or is unable to submit to examination. ("I don't want to" does NOT constitute unable to submit to exam. 2. There is articulable reasonable suspicion based on physical evidence, witness statements or contradictory victim statements that indicate the victim is making a false allegation. (adding something to a statement or forgetting to include something in a subsequent statement does NOT necessarily constitute a contradictory statement, although a lack of physical evidence where common sense tells us there should be some, may legitimatly add to reasonable suspicion)
3. The charging authority is prepared to assure the victim that their efforts will not cease based solely on a failed polygraph. If all of those criteria are met, then I run a statement confirmatory test.The subject will be given relevant questions that allow him/her to answer "YES" I am unafraid to confront or interrogate any victim who is D.I. on a statement confirmatory exam. Other than the fact that polygraph may further traumatize the victim or serve to alienate the victim from investigators; there is another reason that we should be careful running sexual assault victims. They LIE!!! (wait put down the pitchforks and torches guys) They do lie. They lie about how hard they resisted or how much force was used so their families won't think they just layed there or invited the attack. They lie about or conceal acts of sodomy and some of the other imaginative acts of degredation they are forced to endure. None of these discrepancies means that the victim wasn't really raped. C'mon fella's if you were raped by a biker gang, how willing would you be to share ALL of the details with your favorite detective? The reason for number one on my list which requires an identified suspect is because if you don't have an identified suspect the ONLY reason a detective might need to polygraph a victim is to deactivate his case with an "Unfounded" There is no miscarriage of justice by false accusation if a suspect is never identified. The reason I require that the suspect submit to polygraph first is that suspects often make counter-allegations against legitimate victims and their attorneys try to get the victim polygraphed hoping that the D.A. will be in a weaker position at plea bargain time. In my book the victim gets the benefit of the doubt. The suspect goes first. In addition, everyone here knows that the best possible polygraph can only be run with the best possible investigative information. It always seems that when investigators bring a case file to chat about polygraphing the victim, the case file is woefully thin. This makes me suspicious that the detective is trying to use me to get the investigation off of his case load. All that being said, If I were to ordered to run and examination on a victim where the above criteria were not met to my satisfaction, I wouldn't do it. There are other examiners they could call. I have enough time in harness to retire at any time and I keep an udated set of papers in my desk drawer. By the way, where do I access that newsletter???
------------------
but then, that's just one man's opinion
[This message has been edited by ebvan (edited 06-02-2006).] IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 06-02-2006 04:13 PM
I don't have any problem with testing "victims"-just not sexual assault victims. I have tested several victims in suspicious fire and insurance fraud cases. I usually get confessions in those cases. I have also tested the victim of an armed robbery(with injuries) In that case, the victim admitted he staged the thing. I think Jims point is well taken however, that there is little research on victim testing.
EBVAN
Jim has every news letter he has ever published available for sale on CD. I won one of Jim's CDs at a CAPE conference and it is well worth the $$$$$$ he is asking. Click on his profile and there is a link to his web-site.Ted [This message has been edited by Ted Todd (edited 06-02-2006).] IP: Logged |
ebvan
Member
|
posted 06-02-2006 07:49 PM
Ted is correct The only victims I have any hesitation to test are the victims of sexual assault. other crimes don't bother me at all.IP: Logged |
jrwygant
Member
|
posted 06-05-2006 08:05 PM
A bit off-topic: to subscribe to Polygraph News & Views you must be a polygraph examiner. If you are, which I assume everybody here is, send an email to jrwygant AT earthlink.net (replace " AT " with @). There is no cost. I prefer to deliver via an email link to a download site on the web. That keeps my costs down. But if you need postal, I'll do it.IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 06-15-2006 03:28 PM
California Penal Code Section 637.4(a)"No state or local governmental agency involved in the investigation or prosecution of crimes, or any employee thereof, shall require or request any complaining witness, in a case involving the use of force, violence, duress, menace, or threat of great bodily harm in the commission of any sex offense, to submit to a polygraph examination as a prerequisite to filing an accusatory pleading". (b)Any person who has been injured by a violator of this section may bring an action against the violator for his actual damages or one thousand dollars ($1,000), whichever is greater". Just some food for thought! Ted IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 06-15-2006 04:49 PM
The key word is "prerequisite." If you do it for other reasons, you wouldn't violate the statute. What if it's already filed and the defendant passed a polygraph? it appears you could legally do it. Whether you want to or not is another question.IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 06-15-2006 06:34 PM
Barry,
A good point......and one for the lawyers to decide! Ted IP: Logged |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
