4 ms·

... they trusted a polygraph more than the rest of the judicial process. That really doesn't say anything good about the 'normal' process, then.

by gnud 11y ago

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
AnthonyMouse 11y ago
Especially considering that a polygraph has about the same accuracy as a Tarot card reading.
- cmrx64 11y ago
  You and GP really need to read the article fully. Even without doing other research, you dismiss the concept based on a false premise that the article itself clarifies..
  - arethuza 11y ago
    "they know these kinds of tests can be unreliable, being confronted with the chance to take one can filter out disingenuous defendants." So if I was charged with a crime and when offered a polygraph test and I refused it on the grounds that it is unreliable I would be treated as being likely to be "disingenuous" and therefore presumably more likely to be guilty? Edit: I meant more likely to be thought of as guilty.
    - kitd 11y ago
      Well, going on pure logic, all disingenuous defendants refuse the test =/= all those who refuse the test are disingenuous. However, an overhaul of the process would need to accompany any use of a polygraph.
      - arethuza 11y ago
        You think "pure logic" is being applied at any part of the process?
        specialist 11y ago
        I think a guilty person has nothing to lose by taking a polygraph test.
        nekopa 11y ago
        Except for the one guilty party who somehow ended up uncovering more evidence that they did the crime.
  - cafard 11y ago
    William Casey, who was Reagan's first CIA director, told journalists that passing polygraphs is an easily learned skill. Some may not need the training: if there is no psychological stress involved in lying, why should there be physical symptoms?
    - vidarh 11y ago
      Which is still irrelevant here. The willingness - or not - to take the test acts as a filter. Beyond that, a case review is carried out. If the case review finds they have sufficient evidence, the test does not matter. If the case review finds they have insufficient evidence, then you should not have been charged in the first place.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    In other words it's the modern equivalent of the ancient practice of trial by fire. Except that in this case the defendant should have a defense attorney who will tell them the truth, that the ordeal itself is a farce and the real test is whether agreeing to suffer it will convince the prosecutor. Which destroys its value as a filter and converts it back into its true form, a waste of tax dollars on pseudoscience BS. (And a method for prosecutors to coerce innocent defendants into giving up their right to remain silent or communicate through their attorney.)
ithkuil 11y ago
"Piper says that though they know these kinds of tests can be unreliable, being confronted with the chance to take one can filter out disingenuous defendants. Regardless of the results of the test - which are inadmissible at trial due to issues with the reliability of the technology - the assistant state's attorney (ASA) in charge of the case would also perform a [...] review of all the evidence."
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  This just makes it worse! They've publicly admitted that their test will have its result ignored. Any lawyer will quickly learn this and tell their clients, "you might as well, even if you fail, even if you are actually guilty (two entirely unrelated variables), they will still revisit your case". What a waste of time, money and credibility. And this is the new, improved system. And it truly does seem better than what went before it. The mind boggles to comprehend the brokeness of this.
  - morgante 11y ago
    Presumably if you're actually guilty you don't want them going back and collecting more evidence on your case.
    - vidarh 11y ago
      Maybe - they do actually mention one case in the article where the review yielded more evidence and made their case stronger.
- SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
  > though they know these kinds of tests can be unreliable, being confronted with the chance to take one can filter out disingenuous defendants So basically does that mean that although they don't trust the polygraph, they trust the defendant's trust in the polygraph? That seems shaky and subject to change.
  - 11y ago
pjc50 11y ago
The polygraph is a fig leaf for the real process, which is getting a bureaucracy to admit it made a mistake. Without unravelling too much of the process or making anyone fear for their job. It sounds ridiculous that "the defendant might actually be innocent" is something that hitherto was excluded in the process.

... they trusted a polygraph more than the rest of the judicial process. That really doesn't say anything good about the 'normal' process, then.

by gnud 11y ago

... they trusted a polygraph more than the rest of the judicial process. That really doesn't say anything good about the 'normal' process, then.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

AnthonyMouse 11y ago

Especially considering that a polygraph has about the same accuracy as a Tarot card reading.

cmrx64 11y ago
You and GP really need to read the article fully. Even without doing other research, you dismiss the concept based on a false premise that the article itself clarifies..
- arethuza 11y ago
  "they know these kinds of tests can be unreliable, being confronted with the chance to take one can filter out disingenuous defendants." So if I was charged with a crime and when offered a polygraph test and I refused it on the grounds that it is unreliable I would be treated as being likely to be "disingenuous" and therefore presumably more likely to be guilty? Edit: I meant more likely to be thought of as guilty.
  - kitd 11y ago
    Well, going on pure logic, all disingenuous defendants refuse the test =/= all those who refuse the test are disingenuous. However, an overhaul of the process would need to accompany any use of a polygraph.
    - arethuza 11y ago
      You think "pure logic" is being applied at any part of the process?
      - specialist 11y ago
        I think a guilty person has nothing to lose by taking a polygraph test.
        nekopa 11y ago
        Except for the one guilty party who somehow ended up uncovering more evidence that they did the crime.
- cafard 11y ago
  William Casey, who was Reagan's first CIA director, told journalists that passing polygraphs is an easily learned skill. Some may not need the training: if there is no psychological stress involved in lying, why should there be physical symptoms?
  - vidarh 11y ago
    Which is still irrelevant here. The willingness - or not - to take the test acts as a filter. Beyond that, a case review is carried out. If the case review finds they have sufficient evidence, the test does not matter. If the case review finds they have insufficient evidence, then you should not have been charged in the first place.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  In other words it's the modern equivalent of the ancient practice of trial by fire. Except that in this case the defendant should have a defense attorney who will tell them the truth, that the ordeal itself is a farce and the real test is whether agreeing to suffer it will convince the prosecutor. Which destroys its value as a filter and converts it back into its true form, a waste of tax dollars on pseudoscience BS. (And a method for prosecutors to coerce innocent defendants into giving up their right to remain silent or communicate through their attorney.)

ithkuil 11y ago

"Piper says that though they know these kinds of tests can be unreliable, being confronted with the chance to take one can filter out disingenuous defendants. Regardless of the results of the test - which are inadmissible at trial due to issues with the reliability of the technology - the assistant state's attorney (ASA) in charge of the case would also perform a [...] review of all the evidence."

ZeroGravitas 11y ago
This just makes it worse! They've publicly admitted that their test will have its result ignored. Any lawyer will quickly learn this and tell their clients, "you might as well, even if you fail, even if you are actually guilty (two entirely unrelated variables), they will still revisit your case". What a waste of time, money and credibility. And this is the new, improved system. And it truly does seem better than what went before it. The mind boggles to comprehend the brokeness of this.
- morgante 11y ago
  Presumably if you're actually guilty you don't want them going back and collecting more evidence on your case.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    Maybe - they do actually mention one case in the article where the review yielded more evidence and made their case stronger.
SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
> though they know these kinds of tests can be unreliable, being confronted with the chance to take one can filter out disingenuous defendants So basically does that mean that although they don't trust the polygraph, they trust the defendant's trust in the polygraph? That seems shaky and subject to change.
- 11y ago

pjc50 11y ago

The polygraph is a fig leaf for the real process, which is getting a bureaucracy to admit it made a mistake. Without unravelling too much of the process or making anyone fear for their job. It sounds ridiculous that "the defendant might actually be innocent" is something that hitherto was excluded in the process.