7 ms·

Shutting this guy up via prison also provides some value in maintaining the fiction of the efficacy of polygraphs, so it may not necessarily be an endorsement o

Shutting this guy up via prison also provides some value in maintaining the fiction of the efficacy of polygraphs, so it may not necessarily be an endorsement of his methods. It is my opinion that much of modern LEO's abilities to solve crimes are based on maintaining a facade of authority built up by the common perception of their methods. Specifically I mean the methods of analysis like hand-writing analysis, polygraphs, and even more "scientific" methods like finger-prints or DNA evidence. These methods of investigation are often portrayed in popular media as 100% effective in providing proof, however their real rates of effectiveness are quite a bit lower. Much of these techniques are not as effective as claimed or perceived, but are used as a tool to bring pressure to bear on criminals to cause them to implicate themselves indirectly or confess completely to their crimes. Much crime is solved merely by rounding up the "likely suspects" and tricking them into thinking that the case is already solved and the criminal just has a chance to admit and gain some sort of ameliorative to their sentence.

samstave 13y ago
>...a facade of authority built up by the common perception of their methods... And a hell of a lot of force, backed by weapons and corrupt officials willing to "make an example" out of anyone who stands against their false authority.
- ihsw 13y ago
  Don't forget the plea bargain, where they threaten you with the death penalty and life in prison unless you confess.
  - samstave 13y ago
    Fun fact: NEVER defend yourself in court. Iwas in divorce court with my ex. I was required to pay her attorney fees, as such - I could not afford my own attorney. As I was talking to the judge, her attorney was balking, sniffling and laughing at the things I was saying. I stopped, turned to her and said "Excuse me, you're not being very professional" She physically recoiled, and said "what!" The judge said "I am sorry, what did he say" The attorney said "I don't know - he mumbled and threatened me under his breath!" THe bailiff began to scream at me and get in my face threatening to take me to jail. I turned back to the judge and said "No I did not! I told her she was being unprofessional for making snide comments and sounds while I was discussing my case with you. There is audio recording of everything in this room. Replay the recording." The judge dismissed the whole event, as she knew it were shenanigans on the part of the lawyer. The bailiff continued to glare at me. I gave the law firm a poor review on Yelp, Sagaria Law in San Jose, ca. Yelp kept removing it as Sagaria law kept contacting them about the reviews. I will never respect or trust a lawyer again. This is endemic in our society.
    - DannyBee 13y ago
      "I will never respect or trust a lawyer again. This is endemic in our society." You should totally make blanket statements based on a single experience.
      - samstave 13y ago
        Not a single experience. The most egregious. I do not have a singular happy experience with any lawyer where I felt, you know, actually represented. If you have had the fortune of having a lawyer do you well, good for you. I have never once experienced this. I have many examples to draw from. EDIT: well well well, you're actually a lawyer. No wonder your bias. Many examples: * Didn't read my filings prior to court * Forgot our conversations, and misrepresented my statements * charged thousands, never showed up in court * threatening me * accusing me of threatening them (example cited) * charging many thousands of dollars for retainer, while never doing any hours of work aside from a 30-minute phone call * charging me telling me they could achieve a certain outcome, then telling me that there was nothing they could do and it was out of their control. Yeah - fuck that.
        westicle 13y ago
        Genuine question - have you considered that the problem might be you? Sure, there are bad lawyers like there are bad examples of anything else you care to name. It sucks that you've had a bad time of it, divorce court can't be fun. But the fact that every interaction you've had seems negative - with your own lawyers, opposing lawyers, judges and even bailiffs (who are essentially non-legal admin/security staff) reveals a pattern. Eventually you have to ask: Is the whole world crazy, or just me? Disclosure: I am a lawyer. I've had very difficult clients in the past. I generally get along well with clients, opposing counsel and even the opposing clients (to the extent we interact).
        pyre 13y ago
        At least in the case where the opposing counsel was being rude, I could see that as someone that would respect another lawyer, but feels that they are superior (and therefore above) a person that is representing themselves.
sillysaurus2 13y ago
...and even more "scientific" methods like finger-prints or DNA evidence. These methods of investigation are often portrayed in popular media as 100% effective in providing proof, however their real rates of effectiveness are quite a bit lower. Is there hard data on the failure rate of fingerprint evidence? That's quite interesting.
- wavefunction 13y ago
  Well, that's the thing, I don't think (to my knowledge, basically) that they even track such things. Finger-print analysis isn't even standardized, apparently. Brandon Mayfield is one example of a high-level failure in such analysis. He was implicated in the Madrid bombings by a finger-print and thus faced serious international terrorism charges despite being completely innocent. Here's an article that touches on some of the issues, and also mentions some of Brandon Mayfield's experience: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-4069140.html http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-4069140.html A finger-print analyst in the linked article claims 98% efficacy, though there is no data to back up that number. With no standards and no apparent statistics to back up their successes and failures.
- woodson 13y ago
  Please understand that there are much more relevant factors to the use of fingerprint to fingermark comparison evidence in court than their ability to discriminate under ideal laboratory conditions. For some information see: National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Institute of Justice, February 2012 report: "Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach" (http://nij.gov/pubs-sum/latent-print-human-factors.htm http://nij.gov/pubs-sum/latent-print-human-factors.htm) In general there is a move towards probabilistic assessment of the strength of evidence (likelihood ratios), which offers a logically correct way of approaching problems in the forensic evaluation of evidence.
- monkeyspaw 13y ago
  According to popular mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/4325797 http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/432...): 'No studies have proved definitively that fingerprints are unique. Likewise, it is unclear if prints change over time or vary depending on the amount of pressure applied. Statistical models and pattern-recognition software could go a long way toward answering these questions. Additionally, research is needed to expose error rates. The ACE-V method depends on two or more examiners reaching the same subjective conclusion, but doesn't require them to reach it the same way. In one recent experiment, veteran examiners looking twice at the same print came to different conclusions each time. "
ihsw 13y ago
> but are used as a tool to bring pressure to bear on criminals to cause them to implicate themselves indirectly or confess completely to their crimes. It should be noted especially loudly that the plea bargain is one of the most widely used (and most successful) technique of coercing an alleged criminal to implicate themselves, and that over 95% of federal court cases end as a result of a plea bargain.
- bittermang 13y ago
  It's also worth noting that a subject taking the plea bargain does not necessarily mean they got the right person who committed the crime. There are many documented cases where an innocent person was coerced in to taking a plea bargain to avoid a costly trial, because they were afraid of being found guilty regardless, and opt for the "lesser" sentence -- again for a crime they did not commit. The gamification of justice, where the only score that matters is convictions.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
Amadou 13y ago
It is my opinion that much of modern LEO's abilities to solve crimes are based on maintaining a facade of authority built up by the common perception of their methods. Only slightly removed from your point - FBI profilers are completely bogus, they employ the same techniques as fortune tellers. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/11/12/071112fa_fact_gladwell http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/11/12/071112fa_fact_... http://wordsofsocraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2007/11/fbi-criminal-profiling-little-more-than.html http://wordsofsocraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2007/11/fbi-crimin...
- pdkl95 13y ago
  While it's obvious that most "forensic techniques" are at best pseudoscience or folk-knowledge[1], badly needed a lesson or ten in statistics[2], "cold reading" can be a surprisingly useful and powerful technique, when used appropriately. Many "fortune tellers" often admit, when directly asked, that what they do is little more than basic psychology and counseling. Being able to "cold read" what someone is concerned about - and know the perfect "Barnum Statements"[3] to drop early on to get someone to reveal further key details - is something all psychologists tend to do, to various degrees. Regarding the FBI and their "profilers"... isn't being able to read people very fast pretty much the very definition of the job? You don't wast time "profiling" someone if you have a mountain of obvious evidence you can use directly. You profile when there isn't sufficient evidence, and we need someone to make a guess on which of the various poor-quality leads should be investigated. I would hope the FBI hires at least _some_ people with that kind of talent, and comparisons to psychics is likely a good thing, for once. ... That said, this one decent idea by the FBI doesn't do much to offset all those unamerican "plea bargain" games, "asset forfeiture" thefts without a conviction, and countless other abuses of their power we've seen over the last few decades. [1]: http://www.salon.com/2012/09/23/fingerprints_arent_proof/ http://www.salon.com/2012/09/23/fingerprints_arent_proof/ [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_Paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_Paradox (to name one example of many) [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect
  - Amadou 13y ago
    Regarding the FBI and their "profilers"... isn't being able to read people very fast pretty much the very definition of the job? No. FBI profilers don't even interact with suspects - they examine crime scene details and then make up a profile of the perpetrator that other agents and police then try to use as a lead.
frank_boyd 13y ago
> [...] the fiction of the efficacy of polygraphs "Do they work?" is one question. But if you apply for a job at any of the intelligence agencies (NSA, CIA, etc.), you'll have to pass this test. So be prepared.
- drcube 13y ago
  Why do supposedly professional, competent organizations choose to use worthless voo-doo such as polygraphs for any reason whatsoever, let alone important functions such as hiring? Sounds to me like anybody helping illustrate their ineffectiveness is doing the world a favor.
  - moron4hire 13y ago
    Flawed, ostensibly objective tests for subjective, volatile, potentially unkowable information (ie polygraphs, job interviews, school aptitude tests, IQ tests, etc) adre all about passing the buck to the next guy. If it ever turns out that someone is an enemy spy, then the person who hired him can't be blamed, because he "passed the polygraph". It's about plausible deniabiltlity and CYA.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

samstave 13y ago

>...a facade of authority built up by the common perception of their methods... And a hell of a lot of force, backed by weapons and corrupt officials willing to "make an example" out of anyone who stands against their false authority.

ihsw 13y ago
Don't forget the plea bargain, where they threaten you with the death penalty and life in prison unless you confess.
- samstave 13y ago
  Fun fact: NEVER defend yourself in court. Iwas in divorce court with my ex. I was required to pay her attorney fees, as such - I could not afford my own attorney. As I was talking to the judge, her attorney was balking, sniffling and laughing at the things I was saying. I stopped, turned to her and said "Excuse me, you're not being very professional" She physically recoiled, and said "what!" The judge said "I am sorry, what did he say" The attorney said "I don't know - he mumbled and threatened me under his breath!" THe bailiff began to scream at me and get in my face threatening to take me to jail. I turned back to the judge and said "No I did not! I told her she was being unprofessional for making snide comments and sounds while I was discussing my case with you. There is audio recording of everything in this room. Replay the recording." The judge dismissed the whole event, as she knew it were shenanigans on the part of the lawyer. The bailiff continued to glare at me. I gave the law firm a poor review on Yelp, Sagaria Law in San Jose, ca. Yelp kept removing it as Sagaria law kept contacting them about the reviews. I will never respect or trust a lawyer again. This is endemic in our society.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    "I will never respect or trust a lawyer again. This is endemic in our society." You should totally make blanket statements based on a single experience.
    - samstave 13y ago
      Not a single experience. The most egregious. I do not have a singular happy experience with any lawyer where I felt, you know, actually represented. If you have had the fortune of having a lawyer do you well, good for you. I have never once experienced this. I have many examples to draw from. EDIT: well well well, you're actually a lawyer. No wonder your bias. Many examples: * Didn't read my filings prior to court * Forgot our conversations, and misrepresented my statements * charged thousands, never showed up in court * threatening me * accusing me of threatening them (example cited) * charging many thousands of dollars for retainer, while never doing any hours of work aside from a 30-minute phone call * charging me telling me they could achieve a certain outcome, then telling me that there was nothing they could do and it was out of their control. Yeah - fuck that.
      - westicle 13y ago
        Genuine question - have you considered that the problem might be you? Sure, there are bad lawyers like there are bad examples of anything else you care to name. It sucks that you've had a bad time of it, divorce court can't be fun. But the fact that every interaction you've had seems negative - with your own lawyers, opposing lawyers, judges and even bailiffs (who are essentially non-legal admin/security staff) reveals a pattern. Eventually you have to ask: Is the whole world crazy, or just me? Disclosure: I am a lawyer. I've had very difficult clients in the past. I generally get along well with clients, opposing counsel and even the opposing clients (to the extent we interact).
        pyre 13y ago
        At least in the case where the opposing counsel was being rude, I could see that as someone that would respect another lawyer, but feels that they are superior (and therefore above) a person that is representing themselves.

sillysaurus2 13y ago

...and even more "scientific" methods like finger-prints or DNA evidence. These methods of investigation are often portrayed in popular media as 100% effective in providing proof, however their real rates of effectiveness are quite a bit lower. Is there hard data on the failure rate of fingerprint evidence? That's quite interesting.

wavefunction 13y ago
Well, that's the thing, I don't think (to my knowledge, basically) that they even track such things. Finger-print analysis isn't even standardized, apparently. Brandon Mayfield is one example of a high-level failure in such analysis. He was implicated in the Madrid bombings by a finger-print and thus faced serious international terrorism charges despite being completely innocent. Here's an article that touches on some of the issues, and also mentions some of Brandon Mayfield's experience: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-4069140.html http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-4069140.html A finger-print analyst in the linked article claims 98% efficacy, though there is no data to back up that number. With no standards and no apparent statistics to back up their successes and failures.
woodson 13y ago
Please understand that there are much more relevant factors to the use of fingerprint to fingermark comparison evidence in court than their ability to discriminate under ideal laboratory conditions. For some information see: National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Institute of Justice, February 2012 report: "Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach" (http://nij.gov/pubs-sum/latent-print-human-factors.htm http://nij.gov/pubs-sum/latent-print-human-factors.htm) In general there is a move towards probabilistic assessment of the strength of evidence (likelihood ratios), which offers a logically correct way of approaching problems in the forensic evaluation of evidence.
monkeyspaw 13y ago
According to popular mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/4325797 http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/432...): 'No studies have proved definitively that fingerprints are unique. Likewise, it is unclear if prints change over time or vary depending on the amount of pressure applied. Statistical models and pattern-recognition software could go a long way toward answering these questions. Additionally, research is needed to expose error rates. The ACE-V method depends on two or more examiners reaching the same subjective conclusion, but doesn't require them to reach it the same way. In one recent experiment, veteran examiners looking twice at the same print came to different conclusions each time. "

ihsw 13y ago

> but are used as a tool to bring pressure to bear on criminals to cause them to implicate themselves indirectly or confess completely to their crimes. It should be noted especially loudly that the plea bargain is one of the most widely used (and most successful) technique of coercing an alleged criminal to implicate themselves, and that over 95% of federal court cases end as a result of a plea bargain.

bittermang 13y ago
It's also worth noting that a subject taking the plea bargain does not necessarily mean they got the right person who committed the crime. There are many documented cases where an innocent person was coerced in to taking a plea bargain to avoid a costly trial, because they were afraid of being found guilty regardless, and opt for the "lesser" sentence -- again for a crime they did not commit. The gamification of justice, where the only score that matters is convictions.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

Amadou 13y ago

It is my opinion that much of modern LEO's abilities to solve crimes are based on maintaining a facade of authority built up by the common perception of their methods. Only slightly removed from your point - FBI profilers are completely bogus, they employ the same techniques as fortune tellers. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/11/12/071112fa_fact_gladwell http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/11/12/071112fa_fact_... http://wordsofsocraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2007/11/fbi-criminal-profiling-little-more-than.html http://wordsofsocraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2007/11/fbi-crimin...

pdkl95 13y ago
While it's obvious that most "forensic techniques" are at best pseudoscience or folk-knowledge[1], badly needed a lesson or ten in statistics[2], "cold reading" can be a surprisingly useful and powerful technique, when used appropriately. Many "fortune tellers" often admit, when directly asked, that what they do is little more than basic psychology and counseling. Being able to "cold read" what someone is concerned about - and know the perfect "Barnum Statements"[3] to drop early on to get someone to reveal further key details - is something all psychologists tend to do, to various degrees. Regarding the FBI and their "profilers"... isn't being able to read people very fast pretty much the very definition of the job? You don't wast time "profiling" someone if you have a mountain of obvious evidence you can use directly. You profile when there isn't sufficient evidence, and we need someone to make a guess on which of the various poor-quality leads should be investigated. I would hope the FBI hires at least _some_ people with that kind of talent, and comparisons to psychics is likely a good thing, for once. ... That said, this one decent idea by the FBI doesn't do much to offset all those unamerican "plea bargain" games, "asset forfeiture" thefts without a conviction, and countless other abuses of their power we've seen over the last few decades. [1]: http://www.salon.com/2012/09/23/fingerprints_arent_proof/ http://www.salon.com/2012/09/23/fingerprints_arent_proof/ [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_Paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_Paradox (to name one example of many) [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect
- Amadou 13y ago
  Regarding the FBI and their "profilers"... isn't being able to read people very fast pretty much the very definition of the job? No. FBI profilers don't even interact with suspects - they examine crime scene details and then make up a profile of the perpetrator that other agents and police then try to use as a lead.

frank_boyd 13y ago

> [...] the fiction of the efficacy of polygraphs "Do they work?" is one question. But if you apply for a job at any of the intelligence agencies (NSA, CIA, etc.), you'll have to pass this test. So be prepared.

drcube 13y ago
Why do supposedly professional, competent organizations choose to use worthless voo-doo such as polygraphs for any reason whatsoever, let alone important functions such as hiring? Sounds to me like anybody helping illustrate their ineffectiveness is doing the world a favor.
- moron4hire 13y ago
  Flawed, ostensibly objective tests for subjective, volatile, potentially unkowable information (ie polygraphs, job interviews, school aptitude tests, IQ tests, etc) adre all about passing the buck to the next guy. If it ever turns out that someone is an enemy spy, then the person who hired him can't be blamed, because he "passed the polygraph". It's about plausible deniabiltlity and CYA.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]