Man follows black teen who seems "suspicious" and kills him.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Admissible or not an attorney would tear a polygraph test apart on the stand.

It sounds like you are speaking from experience.

And because this is the internet, I must clarify: no, I am not being a jerk. I am serious. It literally sounds like you've had some experience with this: either watching court cases or as a legal assistant or something.

I had no idea lawyers make it a point to destroy polygraph tests. Is there that much of a bias in the court system against them?

Originally posted by dadudemon
It sounds like you are speaking from experience.

And because this is the internet, I must clarify: no, I am not being a jerk. I am serious. It literally sounds like you've had some experience with this: either watching court cases or as a legal assistant or something.

No personal experience, I should have said "a good lawyer would probably destroy it in court".

The flaws of polygraphs are so well known that it's very unlikely a lawyer would let it through without challenge. While the polygraph being good enough for the court system (ethically and legally) is debatable there seems to be a fear among lawyers, scientists, and ethicists that juries over estimate its accuracy. Bayesian false positive rate problems are a good way of showing that most people, and thus juries, aren't remotely equipped to deal with the statistics needed to evaluate polygraph results.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...there seems to be a fear among lawyers, scientists, and ethicists that juries over estimate its accuracy...

This is where our ideas/perceptions of polygraphs converge and agree. I never wanted to say that polygraphs are the end-all de facto "lie detection" standard in court: I only wanted to dispel the idea that they were not allowed.

But here are what the proponents say:

It is a source of adjudicatively significant information that often cannot be obtained through other investigative methods.
It is a deterrent: Undesirable candidates will not apply for employment, fearing disqualification, and employees will avoid misconduct, fearing detection.
It is a cost-effective tool for gathering information and deterring espionage.

http://www.clearancejobs.com/cleared-news/335/how-to-prepare-for-a-security-clearance-polygraph-examination

I have read things that it is accurate 70% of the time...to it being accurate 90% of the time. Considering what they want it to do, I would want something closer to 99% (with the outliers being extreme cases such as pathological liars), not 70%-90%.

The above website has an old figure that was claimed at over a 95% effective rate. Accuracy and effectiveness, as clearly illustrated in that article, are not the same. Part of the "Effectiveness" of it comes from the deterrence.

I know someone who does polygraph testing for the government and though he said it's pretty accurate, he's had it show someone was lying when he knew that he was telling the absolute truth. For whatever reason it was only inaccurate on that one question, but it kept showing false on that question and that question only.

The other problem with them is that it can be skewed by the perception of the person being tested. If someone in his own mind did not consider what he did to be murder, etc, then if you ask that person if they murdered person x, he will say no and be shown truthful. Heck, you'd have to be pretty messed up, but if you believed you weren't in your right mind when you did something you could say that "you" didn't do it and possibly pass.

Again, they work most of the time, but they aren't perfect.

What is funny is that things like bite forensics that are far, far less reliable than polygraphs have been allowed in courts. Even fingerprint matching has been shown to be wrong in some pretty high-profile cases because of the variance in the number of points of identity required for a match and the fact that it is people and not computers that declare matches conclusive in the end.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
I know someone who does polygraph testing for the government and though he said it's pretty accurate, he's had it show someone was lying when he knew that he was telling the absolute truth.

It is "biased" against people who tell the truth too much.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
For whatever reason it was only inaccurate on that one question, but it kept showing false on that question and that question only.

Maybe the person really hated the question?

Originally posted by Ascendancy
The other problem with them is that it can be skewed by the perception of the person being tested. If someone in his own mind did not consider what he did to be murder, etc, then if you ask that person if they murdered person x, he will say no and be shown truthful. Heck, you'd have to be pretty messed up, but if you believed you weren't in your right mind when you did something you could say that "you" didn't do it and possibly pass.

I covered this, already.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Again, they work most of the time, but they aren't perfect.

And I have never read anywhere where a polygraph could be used a singular piece of evidence: it always has to be used in conjunction with other evidence.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
What is funny is that things like bite forensics that are far, far less reliable than polygraphs have been allowed in courts. Even fingerprint matching has been shown to be wrong in some pretty high-profile cases because of the variance in the number of points of identity required for a match and the fact that it is people and not computers that declare matches conclusive in the end.

All good points. All of them cannot be a "case maker" or "breaker", alone.

When are they going to kill zimmerman already?

When are they going to kill zimmerman already?

if he is actually found guilty he won't survive in prison for long

Another blow landed against Zimmerman as his "cousin" has come forward and accused him of molesting her.

Is this at all revelant or should this not matter to the case?

The prosecution is going to claim Zimmerman had tried to molest Martin; this caused the fight which ultimately lead to Martin being shot.

it impacts his credibility, which is what the case rests on entirely

I find him, not guilty.

Why am I the only one that didn't get lewdly molested as a kid? I feel left out.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why am I the only one that didn't get lewdly molested as a kid? I feel left out.

'Cause you weren't on the football team?

(And by that I don't mean there was lack of opportunity...)

YouTube video

Reading from work so I can't see the video.

Apparently the tapes of the shooting are not being allowed. What's the basis for that? [edit] That's a misleading title. The tapes aren't banned only expert testimony about their content. I think that's the right call.

And the jury is all women? What the hell? I guess the prosecutor thinks he looks creepy and the defense thinks he look hot.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Apparently the tapes of the shooting are not being allowed. What's the basis for that? [edit] That's a misleading title. The tapes aren't banned only expert testimony about their content. I think that's the right call.

indeed, I'm not wholly against it, especially given that, even if it were 100% clear that it was Treyvon, that isn't particularly damning evidence against the self-defense position of Zimmerman

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And the jury is all women? What the hell? I guess the prosecutor thinks he looks creepy and the defense thinks he look hot.

women-who-own-guns. I imagine the defense feels women would feel more afraid in their homes from young black men, and thus, would be more forgiving of Zimmerman's behaviour prior to the altercation.

Originally posted by Oliver North
women-who-own-guns. I imagine the defense feels women would feel more afraid in their homes from young black men, and thus, would be more forgiving of Zimmerman's behaviour prior to the altercation.

The both sides have to pass the jury as well so I bet they're old enough to be mothers but none of them actually have kids.

YouTube video

shit, is this televised?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The both sides have to pass the jury as well so I bet they're old enough to be mothers but none of them actually have kids.

sure, that was the only way it made sense to me from the defense's perspective

Originally posted by Oliver North
YouTube video

That guy is a little bit too biased and ignorant for my taste.

It is difficult enough, as it is, to get digital forensics in court much less audio analysis of digital files. I think the primary reason the analyses were dismissed is due to the clear bias one of the gentleman (the fat one...with the beard...forgot his name) had regarding the case. As a professional, you just can't do that.

I think the evidence from the "experts" should be submitted as long as a counter expert can be submitted from the defense.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think the evidence from the "experts" should be submitted as long as a counter expert can be submitted from the defense.

so your claim is that the voice identification methods don't actually have issues?