Grits for Breakfast: CCA oks junk science

[ChumpDumper]

@ chump thinking our criminal justice system is always fair.

@ CC's being a complete pussy about answering a question about his belief.

C'mon CC, check your vagina for the answer -- it's in there somewhere.

[Winehole23]

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

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

haven't found the name yet, but found this:

http://www.thefederation.org/do ents/parker.htm

[CosmicCowboy]

@ CC's being a complete pussy about answering a question about his belief.

C'mon CC, check your vagina for the answer -- it's in there somewhere.

Chump, it is what it is.

I'm having a hard time working up fake outrage and crocodile tears for a child molester.

[ChumpDumper]

Chump, it is what it is.

I'm having a hard time working up fake outrage and crocodile tears for a child molester.

Way to take a manly stand.

Hypocrite.

[coyotes_geek]

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.

Wholeheartedly agree that polygraphs aren't perfect, and also wholeheartedly agree that they shouldn't be used to determine conviction. But calling them solely fake science seems to go a bit far IMO. I'm not sure where exactly we should put polygraphs on the Ouija Board to Wonder Woman's Magic Lasso scale, but it seems like they wouldn't be around at all if they didn't have at least some measure of reliability.

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.

I guess I'm just having a hard time getting past why we would be okay with judges making gut calls but not okay letting them decide what they should and shouldn't use as part of their decision making process.

[vy65]

I must've missed something -- when are we ok with judges making gut calls?

[CosmicCowboy]

Way to take a manly stand.

Hypocrite.

pfft

Like it's such a big deal

[CosmicCowboy]

I must've missed something -- when are we ok with judges making gut calls?

They do it all the time in sentencing.

[ChumpDumper]

pfft

Like it's such a big deal

You certainly your pants in the past when others didn't declare a definitive position on issues.

Hypocrite.

[Blake]

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?

You don't use judges and juries for testimony.

I guess I should have said if it's not 100% reliable, then on it's own, it's unreliable as evidence.

The number of polygraph tests taken does nothing to increase the reliability of the test itself.

[CosmicCowboy]

You certainly your pants in the past when others didn't declare a definitive position on issues.

Hypocrite.

That is YOUR specialty.

asshole

[ChumpDumper]

That is YOUR specialty.

asshole

You can dish it out but you can't take it.

Pussy.

[vy65]

They do it all the time in sentencing.

No, they don't. Here's an example: http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2011_...ines/index.cfm

[CosmicCowboy]

nanny nanny boo boo...your mother dresses you funny...

[Winehole23]

there are gut calls and bad calls.

this decision essentially gives junk forensics a license to print money in Texas and is grossly unfair to the probationer, but I understand others don't necessarily see it that way.

[coyotes_geek]

You wouldn't be nervous as taking 5 polygraphs?

I might be. But if I were nervous about taking the test I think I would be nervous during the control questions as well as the actual questions.

[CosmicCowboy]

No, they don't. Here's an example: http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2011_...ines/index.cfm

The Fed guidelines suck. State courts don't have the same guidelines and the judges have a lot more discretion.

[vy65]

I guess I'm just having a hard time getting past why we would be okay with judges making gut calls but not okay letting them decide what they should and shouldn't use as part of their decision making process.

Now that I think of it, gut calls have nothing to do with the point here.

The existence of arbitrariness in the system doesn't or shouldn't set precedent for introducing a demonstrably false and unreliable type of evidence, gut calls be damned.

[coyotes_geek]

I must've missed something -- when are we ok with judges making gut calls?

Maybe gut call isn't the best term to use, but aren't some of the decisions judges make subjective? How does a judge decide who's worthy of probation and who isn't?

[vy65]

Maybe gut call isn't the best term to use, but aren't some of the decisions judges make subjective? How does a judge decide who's worthy of probation and who isn't?

That's a fair point, and I agree with what I think you're getting at - there is some subjectivity in the criminal justice system. I don't feel comfortable commenting anymore because that's not my wheelhouse.

That said, I don't see the logic in claiming that the existence of some subjectivity in the CJS should invite more subjectivity, especially when that subjectivity is an unreliable test pretending to be scientific fact.

[CosmicCowboy]

That's a fair point, and I agree with what I think you're getting at - there is some subjectivity in the criminal justice system. I don't feel comfortable commenting anymore because that's not my wheelhouse.

That said, I don't see the logic in claiming that the existence of some subjectivity in the CJS should invite more subjectivity, especially when that subjectivity is an unreliable test pretending to be scientific fact.

I think it's safe to assume that a judge would know the facts about the relative reliability of lie detector tests and would take that in consideration in his decision.

[vy65]

I think it's safe to assume that a judge would know the facts about the relative reliability of lie detector tests and would take that in consideration in his decision.

Except that didn't happen at the district court in this case.

[CosmicCowboy]

Except that didn't happen at the district court in this case.

We know from the article that was what the appeal was based on but we don't know what other variables (not appealed) went into the decision.

[vy65]

We know from the article that was what the appeal was based on but we don't know what other variables (not appealed) went into the decision.

You didn't read the Court of Appeals decision, did you?

The State called psychotherapist George Michael Strain as a witness. Leonard was referred to him for therapy. Strain testified that he discharged Leonard from treatment for failing five polygraphs. Strain testified that he used polygraph examinations as part of sex offender treatment and that he and other experts in his field reasonably relied upon them. Leonard presented no evidence. The trial court found the State's allegation that Leonard had been unsuccessfully discharged from sex offender treatment true but found the failure to make satisfactory progress allegation not true. The trial court found Leonard guilty of injury to a child-bodily injury, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him to seven years confinement.

There were no other variables.

[Blake]

I think it's safe to assume that a judge would know the facts about the relative reliability of lie detector tests and would take that in consideration in his decision.

I don't think that's a safe assumption at all.

Even if he did know the facts regarding reliability, it should be irrelevant to the evidence that's actually presented.