- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by DippityShurff
- Aug 16, 2005, 05:06 PMMark Twain once said, "Any man who can't spell a word at least three different ways is narrow-minded"
Posted by qwertyuiop
- Aug 10, 2005, 08:02 PMi think he misspelled it twice.. but um i hate it when people worry about spelling
Posted by Jeffery
- Aug 10, 2005, 01:27 AMQuote from: nonombre on Aug 10, 2005, 12:40 AM
Gee, if this guy is a lawyer, I want my money back. He can't even spell, "proffession."
Nonombre
Even lawyers can make typos. Confusing a typo with ones inability to spell is akin to assuming deception when none exists.
Posted by nonombre
- Aug 10, 2005, 12:40 AMQuote from: lawdog on Aug 09, 2005, 10:35 PMThat poly was for working in a prison setting, not required for being a lawyer. The Bar knows polygraph is bogus.
Real irony is the level of scrutiny a lawyer endures to get admitted. Far and away more than any other proffession. If I rely on no evidence but a person's proffession to decide whether to trust, I trust an attorney over anyone, knowing the strict scrutiny we pass before becoming an officer of the court.
Yet, a few lawyers prove unworthy of trust later on and give the rest a black eye. Sadly, a flawless history at the time of applying for admission is not an infallible predictor of future honesty.
If you think all lawyers are liars, to avoid getting what you expect when you need one, you can and should check any lawyer's record with his/her bar.
Gee, is that off the polygraph subject?
Gee, if this guy is a lawyer, I want my money back. He can't even spell, "proffession."
Nonombre
Posted by lawdog
- Aug 09, 2005, 10:35 PMThat poly was for working in a prison setting, not required for being a lawyer. The Bar knows polygraph is bogus.
Real irony is the level of scrutiny a lawyer endures to get admitted. Far and away more than any other proffession. If I rely on no evidence but a person's proffession to decide whether to trust, I trust an attorney over anyone, knowing the strict scrutiny we pass before becoming an officer of the court.
Yet, a few lawyers prove unworthy of trust later on and give the rest a black eye. Sadly, a flawless history at the time of applying for admission is not an infallible predictor of future honesty.
If you think all lawyers are liars, to avoid getting what you expect when you need one, you can and should check any lawyer's record with his/her bar.
Gee, is that off the polygraph subject?
Real irony is the level of scrutiny a lawyer endures to get admitted. Far and away more than any other proffession. If I rely on no evidence but a person's proffession to decide whether to trust, I trust an attorney over anyone, knowing the strict scrutiny we pass before becoming an officer of the court.
Yet, a few lawyers prove unworthy of trust later on and give the rest a black eye. Sadly, a flawless history at the time of applying for admission is not an infallible predictor of future honesty.
If you think all lawyers are liars, to avoid getting what you expect when you need one, you can and should check any lawyer's record with his/her bar.
Gee, is that off the polygraph subject?
Posted by Jeffery
- Aug 09, 2005, 09:57 PMWhat's ironic is they made a lawyer take a polygraph in the first place. Everybody should know all lawyers are liars; why use a machine to confirm that? 
Posted by lawdog
- Aug 09, 2005, 09:18 PMA wise old law proffessor advised my class never to take a polygraph. I ignored his advice because I graduated flat broke and badly needed a job as a prisoner advocate with the Maricopa County Sheriff's office.
I naaively thought scrupulous candor would get me through. It did not. Questions about sexual conduct were so shocking I was unexpectedly shocked and upset, undoubtedly causing erratic responses. Other questions were about trivial youthful misconduct I had utterly forgotten, but though I was embarrassed I answered truthfully.
The test ended earlier than expected and I never heard any more about the job.
I wish that wise old law proffessor had told us what I learned from this; the polygraph works, if at all, by bluff. I am occasionally asked about taking a polygraph. I advise as my old prof did, do not submit to polygraph, if possible, and to his advice I add: if you must submit, do not admit wrongdoing.
Lie if you must. Certainly admit to nothing illegal.
If the operator interprets you being deceptive, that's at most his subjective judgment, not admissable in court. There still exists a doubt in your favor. If you admit wrongdoing, the test has worked by intimidation, and you have erased all doubts. You can find yourself fired, even prosecuted.
I naaively thought scrupulous candor would get me through. It did not. Questions about sexual conduct were so shocking I was unexpectedly shocked and upset, undoubtedly causing erratic responses. Other questions were about trivial youthful misconduct I had utterly forgotten, but though I was embarrassed I answered truthfully.
The test ended earlier than expected and I never heard any more about the job.
I wish that wise old law proffessor had told us what I learned from this; the polygraph works, if at all, by bluff. I am occasionally asked about taking a polygraph. I advise as my old prof did, do not submit to polygraph, if possible, and to his advice I add: if you must submit, do not admit wrongdoing.
Lie if you must. Certainly admit to nothing illegal.
If the operator interprets you being deceptive, that's at most his subjective judgment, not admissable in court. There still exists a doubt in your favor. If you admit wrongdoing, the test has worked by intimidation, and you have erased all doubts. You can find yourself fired, even prosecuted.