Reply With Quote
using junk science to revoke probation is bs, no matter the reason for the decision.
I can see both sides, but as you pointed out, the guy was found guilty and sentenced. Actually having to serve that sentence is not a violation of his rights no matter what the reason for the decision.
using junk science to revoke probation is bs, no matter the reason for the decision.
you don't have to call 9/11 every time your own thoughts frighten you, let alone send compliant probationers back to prison.
They don't even have to justify it with junk science. A probation officer can revoke probation just because they are having a bad day and don't like the tie you wore to the meeting.
I would understand if it was used as a basis to investigate the guy further and make a decision based on something other than thought police measures.
As it is, the judges who favored this are idiots.
Hey, the two wrongs make a right gambit.
Well played.
They don't even have to justify it with junk science. A probation officer can pretty much revoke probation just because they are having a bad day and don't like the tie you wore to the meeting. That's an oversimplification, but not really that far from the truth.
I didn't revoke the guys probation, asshole.
Not really the same thing though, aren't they? Shouldn't there be different heights between the bars for determining whether or not someone gets convicted of a crime and whether or not someone who has already been convicted gets to serve their sentence inside our outside prison walls?
No doubt polygraphs aren't perfect, and it would be wrong to revoke probation for failing one. But by the time you get to five failed tests don't you have to start to wonder?
I'd be curious to know how many tests he took. 5 failed tests out of how many?
But you're fine with its being revoked for any reason.
Yeah, you'd have to wonder why didn't you get off your ass and find out what was actually going on.
I'm just telling you how the system works. The guy was found guilty and sentenced to jail. They aren't obligated to give him probation. That's just the way it is.
I get that. Still sucks.
So do you agree with basing the decision solely on polygraphs or not?
I will say this: I can't imagine there being a huge gulf between those who agree and those who disagree with this. (i.e. I disagree with this, but feel really uneasy about it and I assume that those who agree with it feel uneasy about that decision too).
CC doesn't seem very uneasy about it.
Agreed
For the crime he was already convicted of - and for which he has not served his full sentence.
Basing the decision solely on polygraphs is beyond ridiculous.
An expert forming an opinion based on polygraph results is a bit trickier, imo.
apparently any reason at all will satisfy when it comes to the civilly dead
So not what they think he's doing or might be in the future.
I'll put you down as being against this then.
Not sure the reason or lack of reason for probation, frankly; my brother in law has been denied probation twice, but because he is completely disabled now; is no threat to society; is not capable of committing crimes; should they just let him out?
I'll put you down as being against this then.
I already put me down as being against it.
At least twice.
making a decision based on polygraphs or an expert making a decision based on polygraphs seems like 6 of one or a half-dozen of the other.
why should evidence which is not allowed in court as being unreliable to establish veracity, be accepted because some expert incorporates it into a professional opinion?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
