Has anyone thought about

[wvguy]

Has anyone thought about using the Government's own rules and policies against them?  Every Agency and Department has a Fraud, Waste, and Abuse  hot line.  That goes right to the Inspector General of that Agency or Department.

My thinking, why not file a complaint with the IG of the GSA ,Congress or any Agencies and Departments about the use of polygraph's.

You don't have to have a case for all 3 categories but when you think about it

Fraud: The fraudulent behavior of government personal that spread the propaganda that the polygraph is scientifically proven to be accurate and depend solely on its results.

Waste:  The time, money, resources  and man hours wasted on a test that is as accurate as the flip of a coin.

Abuse: The verbal and mental abuse dished out by those administering a polygraph on someone they "FEEL" is not being truthful and the continued abuse and disqualification of canidates based on a failed examination in the past from either the same agency or a different one.

Its just something to think about.

[wvguy]

Wow.. No one with anything to say.. That is a first

[George W. Maschke]

While I would not discourage anyone from filing an IG complaint, I'm not optimistic about the prospects for success of this approach. Actually, complaints about the FBI's polygraph practices have in the past been filed with the DOJ IG. But because the FBI doesn't record polygraph examinations, allegations of polygrapher misconduct cannot be substantiated. Moreover, so long as polygraph screening remains the official policy, IGs will have little jurisdiction in the many cases where there is no allegation of examiner misconduct, but where individuals are simply victims of the random error that is associated with this invalid procedure.

[wvguy]

I understand what you are saying and yes for most at the start its going to be like wizzing in to the wind.  Every little it is

After all, look what come from MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Ernesto Miranda Convicted of robbery, kidnapping and rape because of the excepted methods and tactics used at the time. Appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court and lost again. When appealed to the US Supreme court he won.

The out come of him not giving up resulted in a fundamental change in the law, The Miranda warning.

My point here is no matter how many times the status quo is up held every little bit helps and some day we will get our Miranda

[Sergeant1107]

I understand what you are saying and yes for most at the start its going to be like wizzing in to the wind.  Every little it is

After all, look what come from MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Ernesto Miranda Convicted of robbery, kidnapping and rape because of the excepted methods and tactics used at the time. Appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court and lost again. When appealed to the US Supreme court he won.

The out come of him not giving up resulted in a fundamental change in the law, The Miranda warning.

My point here is no matter how many times the status quo is up held every little bit helps and some day we will get our Miranda

Not to go off on a tangent, but...  I think the Miranda decision was terrible.  It essentially relieves a person of the very basic responsibility to be familiar with the laws in their own country.

The police officer should not have to give a civics lesson to everyone they interrogate in a custodial situation.  If the suspect never took the time to learn the rights afforded to them by the Constitution and the laws of the land why is it the police officer's responsibility to teach them?

Other than degree, what's the difference between that and pulling someone over and finding out they have no insurance on their car?  It doesn't matter if the driver claims they didn't know insurance was needed; they are required to know the motor vehicle laws and ignorance of those laws is not a valid excuse for violating them.

If a suspect confesses and later says they didn't know they could have remained silent and/or asked for an attorney why should their ignorance work in their favor?

[retcopper]

Sergeant:

I agree with you but our predecessors forced Miranda on us by beating confessions out of suspects.  As usual the US Supreme Court went too far the other way in trying to remedy the problem. The pendelum has been  swinging the other way since the Reagan court appointees started relaxing the Miranda rules.  Actually it's not too bad to live with right now compared to the way it was. I came on the job in 1966, what great times, MIranda, Hippie culture, Viet Nam War, and Civil Rights movement. As a cop these were horriblwe times but I think a lot of good came out of it to imporve policing.  

Have a good day.

[DippityShurff]

Sergeant:

I agree with you but our predecessors forced Miranda on us by beating confessions out of suspects.  As usual the US Supreme Court went too far the other way in trying to remedy the problem. The pendelum has been  swinging the other way since the Reagan court appointees started relaxing the Miranda rules.  Actually it's not too bad to live with right now compared to the way it was. I came on the job in 1966, what great times, MIranda, Hippie culture, Viet Nam War, and Civil Rights movement. As a cop these were horriblwe times but I think a lot of good came out of it to imporve policing.  

Have a good day.

I entered in 1973 after returning from SE asia.  We stepped in our share of potholes too.  But yes,  a lot of good has come from it.  I can well remember when driving a beat up VW van with flowers on it was enough to get you tossed.  Now, we do try to deal with articulable reasonable suspicion---before we toss them LOL

[poly_what]

Not to go off on a tangent, but...  I think the Miranda decision was terrible.  It essentially relieves a person of the very basic responsibility to be familiar with the laws in their own country.

I lived in a well known Middle East country for an extended period.  Their Miranda warning is more like, "you have the right to scream when we beat you senseless to get a confession",  (or just for the heck of it)...  As such, I see Miranda very differently,  more of putting restraints on some zealots who want or need to find a particular answer regardless of facts.

Miranda (and the entire process that follows) might make police have to work a little bit harder and establish  and verify some facts, something a confession in and of itself (Mark Karr?) does not, and systematically doctored evidence (Dallas Police narcotics unit?) ultimately does not.  

Their Miranda approach became very clear after the head of their national police force told me very proudly, "We can get a confession out of anyone".   In one very high profile instance a few months later, they beat and televised confessions of 4 political agitators for a bombing.  Most outside agencies (including the FBI and other agencies who investigated),  were confident that the 4 were not involved.  Their execution followed quickly, and the real facts were never known to the public.  I had friends in the building when it was bombed, and their version was in start contrast to the official version, which left out very material facts for political convienience.  Officially,  the 'bad guys' were gone, and the country claimed to have solved the problem. 7 months later, another related bombing killed  more.

Miranda may be a little bit more work, but more than that it helped set up a process in this country that at least tends to arrive at facts and truth in less political environment than in many other countries.

Just my 7 halala worth.