Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What is 10 minus 4? (numeral):
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Underjustice
 - Dec 08, 2007, 03:38 AM
Good Legal questions:

1. Why doesn't same lawyer somewhere bring this up to save his or
   her client the ordeal?

Ans: Lawyer will bring this up doing pre-conviction but not post-
       conviction.  Why? see answer to question 2.

2. It is a due proces matter and standards are being apply different for pre - and post conviction.

Ans:  Because there is a different rule of evidence between pre - and
        post conviction.      
Posted by Lethe
 - Dec 08, 2007, 01:41 AM
Here is a legal-type question.

It is obvious that someone who knows how the polygraph works will, in general, produce less accurate results than an ignoramus.  Therefore, an informed truthful person is more likely to "fail" than a clueless one.  Why doesn't some lawyer somewhere bring this up to save his or her client the ordeal?

The test was designed to be used on ignorant people.  If it is being used on someone who knows what's going on, the test is being misapplied and not used as designed.  Seems like that might be a due process matter, though my understanding is that different standards for that apply pre- and post-conviction.

Anyone have any ideas?