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:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by pailryder
 - Sep 23, 2011, 08:08 AM
George

In fairness to the state of Georgia, Davis had twenty-two years to seek a polygraph, if he really wanted one.

I see no incongruity in the state recognizing polygraph as a useful, valid investigative tool, but refusing to substitute a polygraph result for a jury's lawful verdict in a criminal case.
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Sep 23, 2011, 12:02 AM
Bill, pailryder, quickfix,

I'm not arguing that polygraphy has any validity, or that it should have been relied on in the Troy Davis case. Rather, I was pointing out the incongruity between the public position of one arm of the Georgia state government (that polygraphy is a "valid and reliable means to verify the truth") and another arm of the same government denying a condemned man the opportunity to avail himself of that purportedly "valid and reliable means to verify the truth."

For my views on Davis's polygraph request, see Troy Davis and the Polygraph on the blog.
Posted by quickfix
 - Sep 22, 2011, 03:31 PM
oh, so polygraph works! No, wait it doesn't work!  No, wait, it only works if it vindicates you, it doesn't work if it confirms your guilt!  No, wait, it only works in crim specific, it doesn't work for preemployment!  No, wait,....
Posted by Bill_Brown
 - Sep 22, 2011, 03:05 PM
Figs,

This is the link I copied from.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/admissability-of-polygraph-tests-in-court.html

Your link is from 2001 and may be outdated. 
Posted by Mr. Truth
 - Sep 22, 2011, 11:28 AM
It's a moot point now, but let's suppose a test was conducted, Davis was scored as no deception indicated, and using some literature/resources, a 90% "accuracy" rate is referenced (which is lower that one advertised here: http://www.theftstopper.com/polygraph_employee_theft.htm).

Outcome 1: deception indicated
Well, that just confirms what we already knew/believed: he is guilty, off with his head

Outcome 2: no deception indicated
Given that the prosecution didn't use it in the first place, and already have the utmost confidence in the strength of the case presented, backed up by findings from appeals and reviews, the 10% chance the results are wrong is good enough to proceed with the execution. Who would want to defend that reasoning?

Either way, it is good that polygraphers stayed inside their little industrial park or strip mall offices, filled with the cheap furniture and walls covered with plaques from no-name schools or institutes, and did not offer their truth-divining service in the cause of "truth, justice, and the American way" because the truth of the matter is this: it is unreliable, has practically no validity, is a convenient tool for bullying job candidates, and is not used when it really matters.
Posted by pailryder
 - Sep 22, 2011, 06:28 AM
So this site advocates the abolition of polygraph, unless it can be used to save convicted cop killers?  I don't know if this man's conviction was just or not , but polygraph played no part in it.
Posted by figs
 - Sep 21, 2011, 09:28 PM
Quote from: Bill_Brown on Sep 21, 2011, 08:11 PM
This is from a search of laws regarding admissibility in Georgia:

...

Georgia, on the other hand, allows defendants who suffer damage because of a false result on a polygraph test (which are somewhat frequent) to sue the polygraph operator for damages

Incorrect. http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol18/iss1/36/.
Posted by Mr. Truth
 - Sep 21, 2011, 08:29 PM
I am one of those persons you refer to. If the polygraph were as valid as some claim, the results still wouldn't matter. The prosecutors and various higher courts have all ruled the same. They have all the evidence and procedure they need.

I guess its use is okay to help reject people for jobs, but not okay to validate executions. If Davis took the test and failed (and being innocent), his recourse for suing for damages would be quite limited.

I'm just saying it's too bad the APA or some famous polygrapher has not ridden in on Silver and asked to have a shot at this case because maybe, just maybe, with its oh-so-keen ability to detect lies (and conversely, determine truthfulness), the polygraph could save a life.

It won't happen because we all know the ground truth: the polygraph is a fraud and its use anywhere in our legal system is a travesty. You only like the results when it suits your purpose.
Posted by Bill_Brown
 - Sep 21, 2011, 08:11 PM
George it is your advice to not take a polygraph examination.  Now you advocate, or persons posting on this board advocate that as a last ditch effort to save this man, polygraph be used.  If it is pseudo science, as advertised here, why would the courts or you be favorable and ask that it be used?

The Defendant should have done polygraph testing long ago in this case.  Studying the case gives me the impression that he may be innocent.  I sincerely doubt the courts in Georgia will accept polygraph evidence. 

This is from a search of laws regarding admissibility in Georgia:

States like California, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Florida allow the tests if everyone agrees to them, but may put different emphasis on the tests accuracy. 

Georgia, on the other hand, allows defendants who suffer damage because of a false result on a polygraph test (which are somewhat frequent) to sue the polygraph operator for damages
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Sep 21, 2011, 03:14 PM
It doesn't reflect well on the state of Georgia that while the Georgia Bureau of Investigation maintains that polygraphy is a "valid and reliable means to verify the truth," the Georgia Department of Corrections has denied a (quite possibly innocent) man who is about to be executed permission to take a polygraph in an attempt to seek clemency.
Posted by Mr. Truth
 - Sep 21, 2011, 03:12 PM
Really, what if? What if he did get a polygraph and he was scored as having told the truth. "But, but, he told the truth and you killed him anyway?" It is kind of deafening.
Posted by stefano
 - Sep 21, 2011, 02:55 PM
Quote from: Mr._Truth on Sep 21, 2011, 02:43 PMWhat if you were innocent and the results came back negative? But if you "pass" it seems there are those who won't believe you anyway. 
Where is the outrage from the Polygraph community? Should not the APA be stepping forward? The silence from polygraph examiners is deafening.
Posted by Mr. Truth
 - Sep 21, 2011, 02:43 PM
"Earlier, defense lawyer Stephen Marsh told The Associated Press that the Georgia Department of Corrections denied his request to allow Davis to take a polygraph test. Marsh had said he hoped the polygraph would persuade the state pardons board to reconsider a decision against clemency."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44592285/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/#.TnovYpZA6Ac

What if you were innocent and the results came back negative? But if you "pass" it seems there are those who won't believe you anyway.