Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry
Thank you for the site. The info you included in your post was gathered
from a specific groups of scientists it appears and is an amicus brief
and is only to present legal arguments or facts on behalf of someone.
IOW, it is my belief it is similar to an expert witness. And you,
yourself, state that it is not the most effective way of learning the
truth. So why would Paula taking a lie detector test prove anything?
Also all the information that I have summarized below counters the
excerpts from the amicus brief.
Here is the information I have from psychology sources: Bacon's 1998
Psychology textbook, Meyer's 1998 Psychology textbook, Kassim 1998
Psychology textbook, Hockenbury & Hockenbuy 1997 Psychology textbook and
Meyer"s (frorensic psychologist) book on abnormal behavior and the cj
system.
1. The central assumption underlying the polygraph test is that lying
results in more emotional arousal than telling the truth. Lying then is
stressful and should cause the same physiological responses that stress
does. Problem number 1--*most*, not all people, experience these
physiological responses when lying. Some people are able to lie without
experiencing arousal or anxiety because of the personality
characteristics, chemical use, or physical attributes. One of the
characteristics of an antisocial is that they are amoral--to feel guilt,
stress, anxiety about lying you must have some degree of morality I
would think. Other characteristics is that of persistent lying,
disregard for the truth, and manipulation (con-artist). Evidence shows
that accomplished con artists can tell huge lies with little little or
no emotional respons.
2. The lie detector does not detect lies--only emotional arousal.
Similar responses occur with feelings of irritation, guilt, anxiety,
etc. Thus, a person's perceptions can affect the results of the test.
If a dishonest person is skeptical but an honest persons believes the
detector works, the person telling the truth may actually show a larger
reaction on the machine than a person who is lying. And, because the
machine cannot detect which emotion is being recorded, at a conservative
estimate the test errs about 1/3 of the time, with innocent people being
more likely to fail the test than a lying person. Others estimate the
error for innocent people at 45 percent. Also there are simple
countermeasures that can be used even with the refined polygraph tests
now given. Studies show that you can beat the test simply by
distracting yourself or by tensing your muscles, biting your tongue, or
squeezing your toes while answering the control questions which will
mask the stress aroused by lying to the relevant questions.
Finally, it has been concluded after review of all the polygraph
research for the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment that it
is possible to make accurate and discriminating judgments of truth and
deception only IF the subject is naive and the examiner well-trained.
This leaves me with the conclusion that Paula Jones polygraph test tells
me nothing in regard to her truthfulness or not. In fact, if I wanted
to be cyncial I would point out that if she really had suffered such
emotional trauma, then she should have been aroused emotionally just
having to answer the relevant questions and. thus, should have failed
the test. They have found some evidence for this when questioning rape
victims using the polygraph test.
jackief
However, these same responses (physical) are present in people when they
they are experiencing anxiety, irritation,
--
In the sociology room the children learn
that even dreams are colored by your perspective
I toss and turn all night. Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room"
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
