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 color are the stars on the U.S. flag?:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Marty
 - Aug 28, 2003, 09:24 PM
Quote from: orolan on Aug 28, 2003, 08:29 PMIronically enough, the site is a pro-poly / anti-CVSA site. Perhaps they should "practice what they preach" ;)

Conversely, the argument about producing confessions, the principal argument made by DoD for the polygraph, is equally valid for the CVSA.  Ya gotta love it. It's the "truth" industry version of sugar pills.

:)

-Marty
Posted by orolan
 - Aug 28, 2003, 08:29 PM
Another quote I ran across, found on voicestress.com. The quote is about CVSA, but certainly could be applied to polygraphs.
QuoteInstead they have relied on selective personal testimonials on how they can be used to obtain confessions, while the routine failure of the device as a lie detector is overlooked.  Are confessions the same as validity?  Hardly.  For years cops used to get confessions from suspects with all kinds of lie detector ruses, like wiring a naïve suspect to a photocopier, or using the old Motorola radio in their squad cars that could change a red light to green when the mike button was pressed.  And, a phony ploy works only so long before people catch on.  
Ironically enough, the site is a pro-poly / anti-CVSA site. Perhaps they should "practice what they preach" ;)