Slashdot Mirror
Polygraph E-Book at Issue in Federal Civil Suit
George Maschke writes "The question of whether a patient in the state of Iowa's Civil Commitment Unit for Sexual Offenders (CCUSO) may read AntiPolygraph.org's free e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, was at issue in a recently-decided federal civil suit (Willis v. Smith, et al.). The CCUSO relies heavily on polygraphs in its treatment program. The e-book in question provides relevant information that the directors of the CCUSO don't want patients to know. See, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector at Issue in Federal Civil Suit."
It isn't clear what the exact situation is. If for some reason he is here, but not convicted of a crime (I can't figure out what such a reason would be, but the article isn't clear), then they don't have any right to restrict his reading. However they can also refuse to guarantee results if he does read such a thing. For the rest of this post I'm going to assume he has been convicted of a crime.
In this situation they have rights to restrict any reading material that might allow him to cheat treatment. He is a criminal. He has prooven himself unable to handle freedom, therefore we need to restrict his freedoms until he learns how to deal with the responsibilities freedom provides.
Many people complain (rightly so) that jails do not treat criminals, they just pull them off the street for a while. Iowa is attempting treatment, using the best we have. Polygraphs are easy enough to cheat when you don't know how, books that teach you how can quickly make them completely worthless. Unfortunately things like polygraphs are one of the few things we have to use in treatment. I would expect that those using them understand the limitations, but that is a reason to not use them.
Yet another example of how inmates forfeit nearly all of their civil rights. Isn't it bizarre that a man who was convicted of kidnapping, raping, and murdering a 12-year-old girl (You'll have to scroll down) can post personal ads online, but these inmates are forbidden from reading an eBook?
Specialization is for insects. -Heinlein
The facts are that such tests do not actually work? Then why is this slashdot article even here, if the answer is so conclusive?
In truth, lie detectors are based on recordable behaviors of humans when exposed to stimulus, namely the sweating or increased breathing. Psycholgists love to talk about that, it's an observable phenomenon.
The problem with "lie detector" tests comes when the result is inconclusive. Does this indicate a lie, or the truth? Neither.
Really, lie detectors shouldn't be a front line tool, and shouldn't be trusted, but they are a potentially viable tool in an examiner's belt.
The problem is even worse than that. They establish a "baseline" by asking a series of questions that everybody will lie about. So they're using crock deviations from a crock standard to make their conclusions.
There was something on TV recently where they pitted an expert with a polygraph against a Psychic, an ex-CIA interrogator and a facial recognition program. The professional interrogator won with about 90% accuracy, the software was second and the polygraph and psychic were essentially tied at right about random chance.