Grits for Breakfast: CCA oks junk science

[coyotes_geek]

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.

None of this is my wheelhouse. Hasn't kept me from commenting.

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.

If we're going to trust a judge to require polygraphs as a condition to someone's probation, why shouldn't we trust that judge enough to determine how credible the results are?

I get that they're not pefect, but I've got to beleive they're better than a coin flip. Otherwise they wouldn't be around.

[vy65]

None of this is my wheelhouse. Hasn't kept me from commenting.

If we're going to trust a judge to require polygraphs as a condition to someone's probation, why shouldn't we trust that judge enough to determine how credible the results are?

I thought you were making a slightly different point. But I think the answer to your question is that there is sufficient information out there to show that polygraph evidence is inherently unreliable and shouldn't be used as a basis for a legal decision.

This is from the court of appeals decision and I think makes a good point:

We do not hold that polygraph exams cannot be imposed as a condition of community supervision or used as part of a sex-offender treatment program. Even though the test results are inadmissible, polygraph exams allow treatment providers to monitor compliance, and they can serve as a catalyst for further investigation.[7] Nor do we hold that the failure to take a test is inadmissible or that trial courts lack the discretion to revoke community supervision for failing or refusing to take a court-ordered polygraph.

[coyotes_geek]

I thought you were making a slightly different point. But I think the answer to your question is that there is sufficient information out there to show that polygraph evidence is inherently unreliable and shouldn't be used as a basis for a legal decision.

When involved in a conversation I find interesting my point has been known to evolve from time to time just to keep things going.

[baseline bum]

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.

I disagree; I don't have to worry about getting sent to jail for what name I state.

[coyotes_geek]

We do not hold that polygraph exams cannot be imposed as a condition of community supervision or used as part of a sex-offender treatment program. Even though the test results are inadmissible, polygraph exams allow treatment providers to monitor compliance, and they can serve as a catalyst for further investigation.[7] Nor do we hold that the failure to take a test is inadmissible or that trial courts lack the discretion to revoke community supervision for failing or refusing to take a court-ordered polygraph.

So to try and simplify:

1. Ok to require polygraphs for probation.
2. Inadmissible (not stated, but presumably referring to only the trial part since #3 says it's....)
3. Ok for court to consider failure/refusal to take in decision to revoke probation.

I'm okay with this. Especially when the person in question has gone 0 for 5. If it were just one test, or if he had passed some tests, that would be a different case IMO.

[coyotes_geek]

I disagree; I don't have to worry about getting sent to jail for what name I state.

For a single test, I can see that. I have trouble stretching that out to five failed tests though.

[ChumpDumper]

What were the questions he failed?

[TeyshaBlue]

What were the questions he failed?

"Are you known as ChumpDumper on Spurs Talk?"

[Drachen]

"Are you known as ChumpDumper on Spurs Talk?"

"What specifically was your aim in asking that question? Remember, be specific."

[ChumpDumper]

more of a Culburn joke tbh

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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?

Is then the solution to completely discount the professional opinion? All or nothing?

[Winehole23]

I have no freeking idea, Fuzzy. I'm not a lawyer.

Didn't vy65 reference something vaguely related to this upstream?

[Winehole23]

(Jalapeno Cheese Grits? in-A that sounds great).

According to the legend and lore of this board, CC throws down.

[Winehole23]

, Fuzzy, I posted a link that addresses that question too. Did you read either one?

[Wild Cobra]

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

That's a tough one. I would expect a judge to look at the facts, but in civil cases especially, they have to decide for one side or another. When the facts are unclear, what do you do. I have a very sour feeling since I was once wronged by a judges ruling in a civil case. however, I understand that they are in a predicament and must do the best they can.

Judges are human. They make mistakes like anyone else. I can forgive a mistake. I cannot forgive using the bench for activism.

[Mitt Romney]

I like grits.

[GSH]

How about some facts, instead of all the bull ?

First of all, he was not sent to prison because of failed polygraph tests. He was sent to prison because he had been charged with aggravated sexual assault of a minor, and was allowed instead to plead guilty to injury to a child. He was convicted of a crime - without the use of a polygraph. That's why he went to prison. Period. The fact that he was granted probation to begin with is probably the only judicial abuse involved.

The revocation proceedings were brought because he failed to meet the terms of probation. The failures included failure to pay fines, as well as his being unsuccessfully discharged from treatment. So even without anything related to the polygraph, he was still in violation of his probation due to his failure to pay the fines.

Judges aren't required to grant probation, and they can set any terms they wish. , the word "probation" literally means "testing". It's basically a test to see of the criminal can follow the rules. No one has to prove that an additional crime has been committed. Associating with a known felon is not a crime, but can be grounds for revoking probation. The same for consumption of alcohol, possession of a firearm, leaving the county, etc. In this case, the judge actually made the polygraphs part of the terms of probation. If the guy doesn't meet the terms, tough . He can serve his actual sentence. You know - the one he got for screwing a child?

In this case, the therapist kicked the guy out of therapy because he didn't feel like he was making satisfactory progress. That's an opinion. He can use any basis he wants to form his opinions. He could just as easily said, "I did not feel that the subject was being sincere and honest in therapy sessions." He didn't need the damned polygraph. Is it unfair that one person can have that kind of power over the situation? What's really unfair is when a 40 year-old man has that kind of power over a child. This guy had already been convicted. You people are arguing over whether he should be in jail for it. Probation isn't a ing right.

One more thing. A lot of things that happen in these cases never make it into the court proceedings. They get suppressed - or waived, as in the unpaid fines. The therapist likely believed that this guy was gaming his therapy, and still presented a danger to children, and he used the 5 failed polygraphs as part of the basis for his belief. And it's just as likely that the defense seized on that one thing to try and find a way to keep the guy on the streets. Do people go looking for reasons to revoke probation, in certain cases. You bet your ass they do. And they should. In the case of a child predator, it shouldn't take much to give these guys the privelege of the prison sentence they earned.

Nobody is trying to make polygraphs admissable in court, for the purpose of conviction. Nobody is trying to make the opinion of a therapist, based solely on a polygraph, sufficient evidence for conviction. There's no slippery slope. There are enough other judicial and law enforcement abuses to get concerned aout, without blowing this one out of proportion.

[101A]

I like grits.

Mormons don't like grits.

[CosmicCowboy]

How about some facts, instead of all the bull ?

First of all, he was not sent to prison because of failed polygraph tests. He was sent to prison because he had been charged with aggravated sexual assault of a minor, and was allowed instead to plead guilty to injury to a child. He was convicted of a crime - without the use of a polygraph. That's why he went to prison. Period. The fact that he was granted probation to begin with is probably the only judicial abuse involved.

The revocation proceedings were brought because he failed to meet the terms of probation. The failures included failure to pay fines, as well as his being unsuccessfully discharged from treatment. So even without anything related to the polygraph, he was still in violation of his probation due to his failure to pay the fines.

Judges aren't required to grant probation, and they can set any terms they wish. , the word "probation" literally means "testing". It's basically a test to see of the criminal can follow the rules. No one has to prove that an additional crime has been committed. Associating with a known felon is not a crime, but can be grounds for revoking probation. The same for consumption of alcohol, possession of a firearm, leaving the county, etc. In this case, the judge actually made the polygraphs part of the terms of probation. If the guy doesn't meet the terms, tough . He can serve his actual sentence. You know - the one he got for screwing a child?

In this case, the therapist kicked the guy out of therapy because he didn't feel like he was making satisfactory progress. That's an opinion. He can use any basis he wants to form his opinions. He could just as easily said, "I did not feel that the subject was being sincere and honest in therapy sessions." He didn't need the damned polygraph. Is it unfair that one person can have that kind of power over the situation? What's really unfair is when a 40 year-old man has that kind of power over a child. This guy had already been convicted. You people are arguing over whether he should be in jail for it. Probation isn't a ing right.

One more thing. A lot of things that happen in these cases never make it into the court proceedings. They get suppressed - or waived, as in the unpaid fines. The therapist likely believed that this guy was gaming his therapy, and still presented a danger to children, and he used the 5 failed polygraphs as part of the basis for his belief. And it's just as likely that the defense seized on that one thing to try and find a way to keep the guy on the streets. Do people go looking for reasons to revoke probation, in certain cases. You bet your ass they do. And they should. In the case of a child predator, it shouldn't take much to give these guys the privelege of the prison sentence they earned.

Nobody is trying to make polygraphs admissable in court, for the purpose of conviction. Nobody is trying to make the opinion of a therapist, based solely on a polygraph, sufficient evidence for conviction. There's no slippery slope. There are enough other judicial and law enforcement abuses to get concerned aout, without blowing this one out of proportion.

X2

[CosmicCowboy]

FYI, this recipe is pretty close to what I do...

2 c. uncooked yellow grits
1/2 lb. sharp Cheddar cheese, grated
1/2 c. butter
2 cloves garlic, crushed
2 tsp. Tabasco
1 (4 oz.) can chopped green chilis
2 jalapeno peppers, seeded and chopped
3 eggs, well beaten

Cook grits. Mix in other ingredients. Add beaten eggs last. Bake in a large greased casserole. 350 degrees for 45 minutes. Serves 12-14.

I also add cayenne pepper

[Winehole23]

How about some facts, instead of all the bull ?

First of all, he was not sent to prison because of failed polygraph tests. He was sent to prison because he had been charged with aggravated sexual assault of a minor, and was allowed instead to plead guilty to injury to a child. He was convicted of a crime - without the use of a polygraph. That's why he went to prison. Period. The fact that he was granted probation to begin with is probably the only judicial abuse involved.

The revocation proceedings were brought because he failed to meet the terms of probation. The failures included failure to pay fines, as well as his being unsuccessfully discharged from treatment. So even without anything related to the polygraph, he was still in violation of his probation due to his failure to pay the fines.

Judges aren't required to grant probation, and they can set any terms they wish. , the word "probation" literally means "testing". It's basically a test to see of the criminal can follow the rules. No one has to prove that an additional crime has been committed. Associating with a known felon is not a crime, but can be grounds for revoking probation. The same for consumption of alcohol, possession of a firearm, leaving the county, etc. In this case, the judge actually made the polygraphs part of the terms of probation. If the guy doesn't meet the terms, tough . He can serve his actual sentence. You know - the one he got for screwing a child?

In this case, the therapist kicked the guy out of therapy because he didn't feel like he was making satisfactory progress. That's an opinion. He can use any basis he wants to form his opinions. He could just as easily said, "I did not feel that the subject was being sincere and honest in therapy sessions." He didn't need the damned polygraph. Is it unfair that one person can have that kind of power over the situation? What's really unfair is when a 40 year-old man has that kind of power over a child. This guy had already been convicted. You people are arguing over whether he should be in jail for it. Probation isn't a ing right.

One more thing. A lot of things that happen in these cases never make it into the court proceedings. They get suppressed - or waived, as in the unpaid fines. The therapist likely believed that this guy was gaming his therapy, and still presented a danger to children, and he used the 5 failed polygraphs as part of the basis for his belief. And it's just as likely that the defense seized on that one thing to try and find a way to keep the guy on the streets. Do people go looking for reasons to revoke probation, in certain cases. You bet your ass they do. And they should. In the case of a child predator, it shouldn't take much to give these guys the privelege of the prison sentence they earned.

Nobody is trying to make polygraphs admissable in court, for the purpose of conviction. Nobody is trying to make the opinion of a therapist, based solely on a polygraph, sufficient evidence for conviction. There's no slippery slope. There are enough other judicial and law enforcement abuses to get concerned aout, without blowing rthis one out of proportion.

not saying you're wrong, but much of this post repeats what's gone before, much is strawman argument challenging claims not made in the thread, and what's your source for the details of the case?

[Blake]

How about some facts, instead of all the bull ?

The revocation proceedings were brought because he failed to meet the terms of probation. The failures included failure to pay fines, as well as his being unsuccessfully discharged from treatment. So even without anything related to the polygraph, he was still in violation of his probation due to his failure to pay the fines.

Where are you reading that he failed to pay fines?

If failure to pay is all that's needed to revoke probation, why this fuss over the polygraph tests?

Is it unfair that one person can have that kind of power over the situation? What's really unfair is when a 40 year-old man has that kind of power over a child. This guy had already been convicted. You people are arguing over whether he should be in jail for it. Probation isn't a ing right.

The ol' two unfairs make it fair line of reasoning.

There's no slippery slope.

Judge Cathy Cochran, writing in dissent, said the majority opinion employs logic that leads the legal system "down a very steep and slippery slope."
Leonard was sent to prison based solely on the failed polygraphs,

How bout some facts instead of bull ?

[vy65]

Is then the solution to completely discount the professional opinion? All or nothing?

Don't know what you mean by "discount." To the extent that an expert's opinion relies on a methodology that fails Daubert or Robinson, the conclusions based on that (flawed) methodology as well as the methodology itself are inadmissible at trial:

We are persuaded by the reasoning in Daubert and Kelly. Therefore, we hold that in addition to showing that an expert witness is qualified, Rule 702 also requires the proponent to show that the expert's testimony is relevant to the issues in the case and is based upon a reliable foundation. The trial court is responsible for making the preliminary determination of whether the proffered testimony meets the standards set forth today. See TEX.R.CIV.EVID. 104(a) (stating that the trial court is to decide preliminary questions concerning the admissibility of evidence).

Rule 702 contains three requirements for the admission of expert testimony: (1) the witness must be qualified; (2) the proposed testimony must be "scientific ... knowledge"; and (3) the testimony must "assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." TEX.R.CIV.EVID. 702. In order to cons ute scientific knowledge which will assist the trier of fact, the proposed testimony must be relevant and reliable.

[GSH]

Where are you reading that he failed to pay fines?

I should tell you to do your own research, you lazy piece of . It took me about 30 seconds to find this. But then, I'm obviously more interested in finding facts than you are. You don't have time for thought, but you have plenty of time to attack? http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx...WAR3-2007-CURR

If failure to pay is all that's needed to revoke probation, why this fuss over the polygraph tests?

It's a last ditch effort by a defense attorney to keep a child predator out of prison. What's you point?

BTW - this is from the link I posted, which you STILL will undoubtedly not bother to read. "The State filed a motion to proceed to adjudication, alleging that Appellant had been unsuccessfully discharged from treatment, failed to make satisfactory progress in treatment, failed to pass polygraph exams, and failed to pay fines."


The ol' two unfairs make it fair line of reasoning.

No, asshole. There's only one unfair. It's unfair that a child gets ed by some degenerate old man. It's perfectly fair that the degenerate old man is sent to prison for it. I was pretty clear about that. You're either too stupid to understand, or you purposely want to create a straw man argument to knock down.

How bout some facts instead of bull ?

I gave the facts. You're too lazy to even look for facts before posting bull . Or maybe you just have a soft spot for child molestors? Either way, you're a waste of the air you breathe.

Why are people like you so happy to remain ignorant? It literally took me 30 seconds to find the facts in this case. I notice you didn't even attempt to dispute the facts that: probation isn't a right, and that the judge was perfectly within his bounds to revoke it in this case. But I am sort of surprised that you didn't try and argue that the judge is part of the one percent, or something equally irrelevant.

[Winehole23]

do you mind sharing the links you found?