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:
Type the third word in this sentence: 'The quick brown fox jumps.' (answer in lowercase):
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by orolan
 - Sep 23, 2003, 07:22 PM
Mr. Truth,
The courts allow polygraphs for sex offenders because the legislature enacted a legal and binding statute authorizing it. The courts are powerless in this situation, except that they can exercise discretion when a sex offender is brought before them on a probation revocation due to a failed polygraph.
Posted by Mr. Truth
 - Sep 23, 2003, 04:23 PM
I like paragraph 62:
Experienced examiners could not detect counter-measures in the lab study.

But get them in the field, and boy-oh-boy, they are experts, sleuths, your regular Sherlock Holmes at detecting them (so they say).

So why does the Court give its tacit approval of the use of polygraphs for, to use an example, sex offenders? If the test is bullshit, for lack of a better technical term at this time, why is it allowed for anyone at all? What about the high failure rates for law enforcement candidates? It is simply mind-boggling that anyone in the government who deals with national security would put any credence in this farce. The only thing polygraphy has going for it is time - all the years of people believing it works, it has become an urban legend that can't (yet, anyway) be dispelled.

How many court rulings and scientific studies is it going to take to put an end to this charade?
Posted by Marty
 - Sep 23, 2003, 03:42 PM
George,

Thanks for that post. It's one of the clearest opinions I have read with an excellent overview and clear description of the polygraph.

I was also struck by paragraph #61.

-Marty
Posted by Anonymous
 - Sep 23, 2003, 11:08 AM
Quote...New Mexico is the only state in the United States where polygraph evidence has been routinely admitted in criminal cases. The New Mexico Supreme Court recently directed District Judge Richard J. Knowles to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding polygraph testing. His report, (New Mexico Supreme Court No. 27,915) may be downloaded as an 869 kb PDF file here:

http://antipolygraph.org/litigation/nm-27915/knowles-polygraph-findings. pdf

After reviewing a large body of documentary evidence and hearing testimony from experts, Judge Knowles concluded that "[t]he results of polygraph testing are not sufficiently reliable for admissibility in courts in New Mexico." ...

As opposed to what one would be led to conclude from a perusal of the postings coming from our friend, the Breeze, Judge Knowles gives reason to hope that there actually is at least a modicum of critical thinking eminating from the Southwest.
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Sep 23, 2003, 10:19 AM
New Mexico is the only state in the United States where polygraph evidence has been routinely admitted in criminal cases. The New Mexico Supreme Court recently directed District Judge Richard J. Knowles to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding polygraph testing. His report, (New Mexico Supreme Court No. 27,915) may be downloaded as an 869 kb PDF file here:

http://antipolygraph.org/litigation/nm-27915/knowles-polygraph-findings.pdf

After reviewing a large body of documentary evidence and hearing testimony from experts, Judge Knowles concluded that "[t]he results of polygraph testing are not sufficiently reliable for admissibility in courts in New Mexico."