Grits for Breakfast: CCA oks junk science

[101A]

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?

Why is the expert, "expert"?

[Blake]

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.

If an "expert" admits to basing his opinion on polygraph results, should his opinion be considered inadmissible? Is he/she no longer an "expert"?

[Winehole23]

Why is the expert, "expert"?

Dunno. The court accepts his testimony and he holds bona fide professional credentials?

[coyotes_geek]

Yeah, you'd have to wonder why didn't you get off your ass and find out what was actually going on.

Depends what kind of questions he's failing on the test.

"Are you stalking children?" "No." Fail. OK, follow the guy and see for yourself.

"Do you have urges to stalk children?" "No." Fail. Now what?

[Winehole23]

doesn't matter. the test isn't reliable.

[coyotes_geek]

doesn't matter. the test isn't reliable.

Does reliability increase with additional tests?

[ChumpDumper]

Depends what kind of questions he's failing on the test.

"Are you stalking children?" "No." Fail. OK, follow the guy and see for yourself.

"Do you have urges to stalk children?" "No." Fail. Now what?

Indeed, now what?

Thoughtcrime?

[Winehole23]

when the CCA says experts can rely exclusively on pseudoscience, what need is there to administer more reliable tests?

[vy65]

Dunno. The court accepts his testimony and he holds bona fide professional credentials?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard

There's a Texas version of Daubert but the case's name escapes me.

[101A]

when the CCA says experts can rely exclusively on pseudoscience, what need is there to administer more reliable tests?

If non-experts can trump the opinion of experts, what need is there for experts?

[vy65]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=1&oi=scholarr

[coyotes_geek]

when the CCA says experts can rely exclusively on pseudoscience, what need is there to administer more reliable tests?

How much reliable science was involved in determing whether or not he went to prison or got probation in the first place?

[Blake]

Does reliability increase with additional tests?

If it's not 100% reliable, then it's unreliable.

[coyotes_geek]

If it's not 100% reliable, then it's unreliable.

Fortunately for us judges and juries are 100% reliable.

[Blake]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=1&oi=scholarr

I guess if an expert bases his opinion solely on polygraph tests, he can be found to be an unreliable witness.

Nice find.

[Winehole23]

How much reliable science was involved in determing whether or not he went to prison or got probation in the first place?

good point on both counts. strict standards were in place for the conviction, and presumably some kind of sober, reasonable assessment was made of the man's danger to society at the time he was put on probation.

odd though that probation would be granted (presumably on some solid, professional basis,) only to be revoked later based solely on fake science backing up a professional hunch.

[Blake]

Fortunately for us judges and juries are 100% reliable.

terrific analogy.

[coyotes_geek]

terrific analogy.

Care to offer up a reason why that's a bad analogy?

Or is it merely the suggestion that there's already imperfection in our legal system that you're taking offense to?

[vy65]

Care to offer up a reason why that's a bad analogy?

Or is it merely the suggestion that there's already imperfection in our legal system that you're taking offense to?

The fact that juries and judges make mistakes isn't a justification for the use of polygraphs; imperfection isn't reason to introduce more imperfection.

[vy65]

By that logic, hearsay should be admissible because judges and juries sometimes get it wrong . . .

[CosmicCowboy]

The fact that juries and judges make mistakes isn't a justification for the use of polygraphs; imperfection isn't reason to introduce more imperfection.

They can use a ouija board if they want to. It's a probation, not a trial.

[ChumpDumper]

They can use a ouija board if they want to. It's a probation, not a trial.

So do you agree with basing the decision solely on polygraphs or not?

[vy65]

They can use a ouija board if they want to. It's a probation, not a trial.

The question was, to me, separate from the OP. But we get your point.

[CosmicCowboy]

@ chump thinking our criminal justice system is always fair.

[baseline bum]

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?

You wouldn't be nervous as taking 5 polygraphs?