Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Hi Jackie,
>
> This is surely a misstatement of most any amicus curiae brief. Certainly
> the argument of any brief before the Supreme Court argues for one side of a
> particular case but the brief clearly argues for the use of polygraphs in
> trials. Polygraphs are now allowed in New Mexico and have been allowed in
> military courts for a long time.
Roxbury Dictionary of Criminal Justice (1997-p. 8)
amicus curiae: A friend of the court. Person may initiate petitions on behalf of
others, perhaps for someone who is in prison. Such amicus briefs are designed to
present legal arguments or facts on behalf of someone else. Person allowed to
appear in court or file a brief even though the person has no right to participate
in the litigation otherwise.. So the argument for use of polygraphs is on behalf
of ????
>
>
> An expert witness may be simply a paid liar or a person of some repute
> speaking to the issue. If you choose to deny the words of any expert
> witness because they are prejudiced, you deem trials even a greater farce
> than I have charged.
What I said is that a "friend of the court" can be just like an expert witness.
They are arguing for the use of polygraph--other amicus briefs can argue for the
other side. You mentioned in an earlier post that scientists are in
agreement--wrong, this is a on-going debate in the scientific field (Kassim,
1998). You might want to contact Dr. David Lykken at the U. of Minnesota and tell
him that the scientific community feel that the polygraph is effective. He was
invited to address the APA after being given the Senior Career award for
Distinguished Contributions in Psychology in the Public Interest. His address was
entitled "Science, lies, and controversy: An epitaph for the polygraph. Prior to
that he wrote on "Polygraph Prejudice." I do think then that he knows what he is
saying and my summary included much of what he said.
> Would you think a fingerprint expert brought forth by the government to
> explain the identification of a suspect to be just another liar who should
> be ignored?
No more of a liar than a fingerprint expert brought forth by the other side in a
trial. As much of a liar as was revealed by the former FBI person who was awarded
money by both the cj department and the FBI after pointing out that testimony was
slanted in favor of the prosecution. These are experts brought forth by the
govenment--so ignored no, having skepticism rather than absolute faith because it
is a government expert, no.
> It is by far the most effective way to tell if someone is telling the truth
> as they know it. If physical evidence is available to refute the test, I
> wouldn't have the slightest hesitation deciding in favor of the physical
> evidence.
Not sure what you mean here--are you talking about criminal physical evidence over
and above the polygraph. Well, then, where is Paula's physical evidence--are we to
believe just the polygraph then. Good heavens, then we better not believe rape
victims who fail the test when reacting emotionally while they are telling the
truth about their assailant (Lykken, 1992). We had better not believe the study of
police files in which 45 percent of the people later found to be innocent failed
the test (Patrick & Iacono, 1991).
>
>
> >So why would Paula taking a lie detector test prove anything?
>
> It is superb evidence she believes what she is saying if the polygrapher was
> competent in administering the test.
I think Doc covered that in her post--convince yourself it is the truth and voila
pass the test. Yes, the lie detector showed one thing--*she* believed she was
telling the truth.
>
>
> >.
>
> >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.
>
> There is no doubt there are expert liars who can be expected to have great
> success with lie detectors. The idea that a psychopath (the currently
> fashionable term is sociopath which has already been overtaken by borderline
> personality) can easily pass a test is simply untested gossip.
The official DSM term is antisocial--the term is the result of an evolution through
a number of terms--most widely known is the psychopath.
1800--manie sans delire--later the label psychopathic inferiority
early editions of the DSM used sociopathic to emphasize the environmental factors
alleged to generate the disorder.
DSM-III and later DSM-IIIR substitued the label antisocial, which is now the
official DSM term.
(Meyer, 1992)
I believe if you look in your DSM and in "Abnormal Behavior and the Criminal
Justice System" (Meyer (forensic psychologist), you will find the diagnostic
criteria appears to be different for the antisocial and the borderline personality.
> e used by police but the results are rightly not trusted.
>
> >with innocent people being
> >more likely to fail the test than a lying person. Others estimate the
> >error for innocent people at 45 percent.
>
> ROTFL!
>
I believe the citations are given above. I didn't come up with the percentage out
of my head. I usually check before I give this type of information.
> Ted Bundy, one time thought to be a likely future candidate for governor and
> a fine member of the Washington State Crime Commission, does not seem to be
> one who could fail a test if such were true, now does it?
Well, you can hit correctly sometimes, now can't you. My concern is when the test
isn't correct with innocent people. Ted Bundy was also diagnosed as narcisstic in
conjunction with antisocial. Perhaps that play a role.
>
>
> >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
>
> Let's understand, Jackie, that if you were a suspect accused of murder,
> slapped into a chair and the questioning went something like:
>
> "How are you?"
>
> "You killed the guy, didn't you?"
>
> the test might not be efficacious. There are ways of doing things.
>
> Where did this assumption come from that a test would be conducted like you
> outline here. Even with a properly conducted test, innocent people fail as well
> as people who have been raped (I would consider that pretty traumatic) but they
> failed when talking about it. They were judged to be lying by the lie
> dectector. Lie dectectors do lie--in other words, the findings are not always
> accurate.
> If Jones was traumatized that should show up and the test would be
> inconclusive. There are means of asking questions and ways of not asking
> questions. Surprise and shock are not ways to use a polygraph.
>
Who said anything about surprise and shock in giving a polygraph. No where has
this been mentioned except by you in the prior paragraph. And you say that if
properly given your above statement says something here--you said she passed the
test; it was not inconclusive. Thus, she must not be traumatized, correct. Your
sentence says if she was traumatized it should show up and the test was
inconclusive--so if traumatized and she passed, she must not be traumatized, thus
no emotional arousal--the purpose of the lie dectector--to identify emotional
arousal. Doesn't sound like she is emotionally traumatized then.
> Jones' test is just another in a long string of proof that she was
> propositioned. It beats the hell out of Clinton's responses:
I am still waiting for this long string of proof--those are statements you cite.
>
>
> a. He can't remember.
>
> b. He can remember he didn't do it.
>
> c. Jones is trailer park trash and he is the President.
> Best, Terry
>
No the reason I am questioning her statement is not because of your statement about
Jones is trailer trash and he is President. That is not why I question her
statement at all. I don't judge people for where they live.. I lived in a trailer
court for over 6 years and I don't consider myself trash so why would I consider
her trash. But I also don't simply believe her just because she says it is so. So
if you are assuming that the only reason some of us question her statement is
because of the difference in status of ole' Bill and her, you are mistaken, at
least as far as assuming that is my bias.
jackief
> "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
--
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
