3 ms·

The man committed a horrible deed - he helped likely criminals escape the reach of justice. But the terrible truth here is that interpreting the squiggles of a

by jostmey 13y ago

The man committed a horrible deed - he helped likely criminals escape the reach of justice. But the terrible truth here is that interpreting the squiggles of a lie-detector test is not science. Perhaps we as a society rely to much on this "so called" technology.

smutticus 13y ago
This man did not commit any terrible deed. Instructors teach people how to use guns every day. Some of these people go on to kill people and commit crimes, but no one would suggest you prosecute the firearms instructors. All this case does is point out how stupid polygraph tests are. Nothing more. If, as the government claims, Chad Dixon taught methods that allow subjects of polygraphs to effectively cheat them, then polygraphs can easily be cheated. If polygraphs can be easily cheated then why is anyone relying on polygraphs for anything. Polygraphs are part operational security theatre and part invasive intrusion on someone's personal life. As this sad story proves they offer little more.
- roryokane 13y ago
  The difference between Dixon’s case and the gun instructor case is that, to use your analogy, the students on gun use actually told the instructor that they planned to go out and shoot someone. That is, people told Dixon that they were going to lie on these tests (rather than just prevent the test giving them a false negative). Now, getting a government job you’re unqualified for isn’t as bad as murdering someone, but it’s still a bad thing for society. Unqualified people in government jobs would presumably make the government run less efficiently with respect to taxpayer money, and less effectively, which could be especially bad if these government jobs help people.
- avalaunch 13y ago
  Instructors teach people how to use guns every day. Some of these people go on to kill people and commit crimes, but no one would suggest you prosecute the firearms instructors. Unless the students being taught told the instructors in advance that they were going to use the education to kill people and commit crimes, which is exactly what happened here. That being said, I agree with everything else you said.
engrenage 13y ago
We normally call the people who committ this 'horrible deed', defense attorneys.
mistercow 13y ago
>he helped likely criminals escape the reach of justice The lie detector is ineffective, and "catching" someone based on it is not justice, regardless of their guilt. Consider a thought experiment (which is admittedly loaded, but instructive, I think): suppose that the government is institutionally anti-Irish. During their interrogations, they routinely ask for documentation of family history, and if they find that you have Irish ancestry, that weighs heavily against you. As an objector to this unjust state of affairs, you specialize in falsification of documents to obscure Irish ancestry. Some of your clients admit to you that they have in fact committed crimes, but you help them anyway. Have you "committed a horrible deed" in ensuring that their fate is not decided by non-evidence? >Perhaps we as a society rely to much on this "so called" technology Perhaps?

by jostmey 13y ago

smutticus 13y ago

This man did not commit any terrible deed. Instructors teach people how to use guns every day. Some of these people go on to kill people and commit crimes, but no one would suggest you prosecute the firearms instructors. All this case does is point out how stupid polygraph tests are. Nothing more. If, as the government claims, Chad Dixon taught methods that allow subjects of polygraphs to effectively cheat them, then polygraphs can easily be cheated. If polygraphs can be easily cheated then why is anyone relying on polygraphs for anything. Polygraphs are part operational security theatre and part invasive intrusion on someone's personal life. As this sad story proves they offer little more.

roryokane 13y ago
The difference between Dixon’s case and the gun instructor case is that, to use your analogy, the students on gun use actually told the instructor that they planned to go out and shoot someone. That is, people told Dixon that they were going to lie on these tests (rather than just prevent the test giving them a false negative). Now, getting a government job you’re unqualified for isn’t as bad as murdering someone, but it’s still a bad thing for society. Unqualified people in government jobs would presumably make the government run less efficiently with respect to taxpayer money, and less effectively, which could be especially bad if these government jobs help people.
avalaunch 13y ago
Instructors teach people how to use guns every day. Some of these people go on to kill people and commit crimes, but no one would suggest you prosecute the firearms instructors. Unless the students being taught told the instructors in advance that they were going to use the education to kill people and commit crimes, which is exactly what happened here. That being said, I agree with everything else you said.

engrenage 13y ago

We normally call the people who committ this 'horrible deed', defense attorneys.

mistercow 13y ago

>he helped likely criminals escape the reach of justice The lie detector is ineffective, and "catching" someone based on it is not justice, regardless of their guilt. Consider a thought experiment (which is admittedly loaded, but instructive, I think): suppose that the government is institutionally anti-Irish. During their interrogations, they routinely ask for documentation of family history, and if they find that you have Irish ancestry, that weighs heavily against you. As an objector to this unjust state of affairs, you specialize in falsification of documents to obscure Irish ancestry. Some of your clients admit to you that they have in fact committed crimes, but you help them anyway. Have you "committed a horrible deed" in ensuring that their fate is not decided by non-evidence? >Perhaps we as a society rely to much on this "so called" technology Perhaps?