Gullible Essex Police are now using junk science lie detectors Police in Essex, UK, are using polygraph tests on convicted criminals – in its own words, “to help manage the risk posed by convicted sex offenders.” A polygraph, colloquially known as a lie-detector test, measures the physiological responses of subjects when interrogated. The technology was invented in 1921, by John Larson, …
I have a proven process derived from extensive viewing of The Mentalist that I would be willing to offer training on. It's only an eight-week course and I'll only bill a paltry $250,000 for the service.
"He agreed to take part and when questioned about the results of the polygraph, he admitted he had reoffended."
If the offender thought that polygraphs were valid, I'm not surprised he made the admission. All the cops have to do is point to some spurious squiggle and raise an eyebrow.
It wouldn't be very ethical, I know. But it's not like a consideration for ethics has ever stopped them before.
Indeed, Bunk's photocopier trick in The Wire springs to mind.
The trick has a pedigree going back much further than that. I first remember reading about it in Private Eye around ten years ago, and indeed it looks like it can be traced back almost 30 years before that.
I feel old now.
"At least to a sooty cock in a darkened room used to catch a thief."
"This needs explanation as its not safe to google"
A suspected sex offender was invited to go into a darkened room and 'izzy wizzy lets get busy' with and innocent bear.
(Google "The Story Of An Early American Lie Detector Test" for a more traditional account of the story)
>Bunk's photocopier trick in The Wire springs to mind.
and of course it doesn't have to work (producing reliable or evidence-worthy results).
The question is, do the crooks know it doesn't work and if they don't will it save more money in police time than it costs?
Even if it isn't used as evidence, perhaps for the number of times it gives some indication of potential discomfort, it might indicate possible avenues the police could investigate.
The fact that it can (often?) give false negatives or positives may not actually be an issue if it isn't going to be used for evidence.
So this relied on the "perp" having little or no knowledge of the law, or legal representation...?
All he had to do was deny everything, stick to his story, and no matter what the squiggle said, he would have been in the clear.
Well I guess it's true what they say, prisons are full of stupid criminals. The smart ones are still living in the outside world.
"He agreed to take part and when questioned about the results of the polygraph, he admitted he had reoffended."
And if he hadn't agreed?
Cops: "So, you won't take the polygraph... but did you get Mr Percy out in the park?"
Sex pest: "No."
Cops: "Fair enough, here's your dirty mac, now off you go."
"Strewth, mate I reckon he'd be choked it was that easy."
Fair Dinkum.
I was watching Portuguese telly recently and as is my wont I was checking the quality of the subtitle translations below. When the term Fair Dinkum was used they translated it to "Faire Dinkum" which as we all know is French and means to do dinkum.
My how I laughed.
I just finished reading Homicide. It goes into how theatre like this can be used to intimidate the ignorant. I wonder what will happen the first time someone gets banged up for violated the terms of their release based solely on the polygraph and it is later proved that the polygraph was incorrect.
Polygraphs are based on physical changes that happen when a person is uncomfortable or uneasy or on edge, i.e. when lying. But some people can lie as fast as a dog can trot without a flicker of change in pulse of sweat or breathing. And some others are so nervous and timid that saying their true name can have them all a-quiver. And others are very dim and can easily be confused and flustered. What can possibly be gained by a bit of equipment that records physical changes and claims they consistently derive from lying or equivocation?
And some others are so nervous and timid that saying their true name can have them all a-quiver.
Well of course it would! Telling someone your true name gives them mystical power over you.
This is why I never introduce myself to anyone as Rich11. God's teeth! You wouldn't believe what power some idiots give away...
What can be gained? It's theatre. The polygraph doesn't need to work, people need to *believe* that it works. It's essentially the same principle that homeopathy "works" - it's a huge placebo effect. The problem is, it only works by intimidating people into telling the truth, and trusting the examiner to recognise the truth when they hear it. Where the technology becomes a problem is when the examiner and others begin to believe the results are authoritative, and trust the machine when the suspect is telling the truth and the machine says they aren't. It's the technological equivalent of the bad cop / good cop gun to the head routine - if you pull the trigger, it's all over.
"I wonder what will happen the first time someone gets banged up for violated the terms of their release based solely on the polygraph and it is later proved that the polygraph was incorrect."
It will never happen. It's certainly not whats happened here.
The suspect confessed to a violation of parole. That's what the evidence is. If they want to retract the confession, they will probably have to show some reason for it. If this is "I was being whacked over the head with the yellow pages" then the confession will (hopefully) be thrown out. If it's from something that is considered an acceptable interrogation technique, then it's acceptable.
So if you have two suspects in custody, it is usually acceptable to say things like "your mate is busy telling us everything and is going to get a sweet deal" or "you totally done it, we know you done it, confess now and we'll go easier on you" or "if you don't 'fess up, we're going to arrest your mum/nan/child since one of you lot done it". Saying "I know you're lying, I have magic powers/technology" is probably fine too.
As an aside, it's often pretty easy for me to tell if someone is being deceptive. When your safety depends on reading people's intentions it's instinctive, and I'd imagine most LEOs have something similar. Determining exactly what that deception is covering up is a whole other ball game.
I would also suggest that if you're talking to the cops and are guilty you should probably get a lawyer. If you are innocent then you REALLY should get a lawyer before answering. Or decline to assist until they arrest you.
The suspect confessed to a violation of parole. That's what the evidence is. If they want to retract the confession, they will probably have to show some reason for it
Confessions are like eye-witness reports. They sound like they ought to be good evidence but they are not.
As an aside, it's often pretty easy for me to tell if someone is being deceptive. When your safety depends on reading people's intentions it's instinctive, and I'd imagine most LEOs have something similar.
Hmmn, LEOs who trust their 'instinctive' insights. We all have them, but the wisest of us know that they should always be critically challenged even if they are a useful heuristic in a time critical situation
"When your safety depends on reading people's intentions it's instinctive, and I'd imagine most LEOs have something similar. Determining exactly what that deception is covering up is a whole other ball game."
Like trusting their eyes to be able to tell the difference between a man holding a gun and a toy truck then shooting the black guy next to him anyway for good measure.
I have a memory of Jeremy Kyle saying that lie detectors are 95% accurate and then proceeding to test no fewer than 8 Suspects regarding who stole grandpa's savings or something.
My maths isn't what it was but it seems to me that you have a 1/3 chance of getting the wrong answer in such a scenario!
> The prescient film "Network"
Watched this on DVD a couple of months ago as I kept on thinking that all the Trump/Saunders/Corbyn/Brexit thing seemed to be getting close to telling people to "open your window, stick your head out and shout 'I'm mad as hell and I'm not aking it any more!' " ... perhaps even more prescient in the light of Clinton's nomination and likely victory that the message was then subverted to be "we've had our fun with the individualism thing but its time now to see that the big corporations are the future and we should let them get on with it"
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
