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.
I would have thought the audience for this was probably pretty narrow, but then I guess I don't really know that much about /.'ers after all.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
Biased, perhaps, but only in the sense that a textbook that presents the facts is "biased" towards the truth. "Lie detectors" as about as reliable as phrenology or handwriting analysis--e.g. not at all.
--MarkusQ
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.
He is not an inmate. He did his crime AND he served his time. In this case Iowa very loosely skirted double jeopardy by persuing civil action against him after he was released.
The civil case got him ordered to treatment, so he is not a convict or serving time for criminal acts, he is being forced to seek treatment because he is messed up in the head.
Polygraph administrator: Have you read "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector"?
Subject: No.
Polygraph administrator: Crap.
Direct away from face when opening.
If the person is incarcerated, I don't see it as a violation of their rights. The real issue here is the "therapy".
The use of a lie detector to verify the veracity of a subject's responses has been proven, time and again, to produce false positives and false negatives in abundance. Also, there are simple tricks that can be used to "game" a lie detector. The administrator of the test can "game" the lie detector as well.
Let's put this in a different perspective. I were an Iowan (Iowite?), I'd be worried about a supposedly "cured" sex offender coming to live in my neighborhood. It's one thing to have the sex offender believe in the Tooth Fairy (Lie Detector), but it's insane for a sex offender's treatment/release to be based on what that Tooth Fairy says about the sex offender.
Here come da fudge!
No, the problem is that eating chilli can cause the same symptoms, as can the posibility of sex or failure of an air conditioner. Just because fire trucks have the "recordable behaviour" of showing up at fires, we can not conclude that the fire station is perpetually in flames.
--MarkusQ
Or, at least the people who are in charge of holding him use the lie-detector to assert so.
The book he was being sent refuted the validity of the lie-detector test.
The facility administrators basically said: it is more important for patients to believe the polygraph is valid then [sic] for the test actually to be valid.
Basically, they can't prove that the reasons they hold him, but they don't want him to be able to know that.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Some people are dangers to themselves or others, and I'm all for them being put somewhere they can be watched. Hopefully they come in by themselves, sometimes we need to pull them off the street ourselves. This man is apparently one of those people. (Whether or not he actually is is another debate, but we have no basis to challenge it.)
But those people are not criminals. They have whatever rights they would normally have, with the sole exception of not being allowed to wander around freely. (And, sometimes, they're not allowed things that could be used to harm themselves or others, but he doesn't appear to be violent or suicidal, and an ebook hardly qualifies.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
BURN ALL E-BOOKS, now that I got your attention, please remember that e-books are meant to take away the traditional freedoms that you have with a paper book (lend, photocopy, read twice, take out at your local library). Use with caution.
Freedom is strength, Ignorance is peace, War is slavery.