"Piper says that though they know these kinds of tests can be unreliable, being confronted with the chance to take one can filter out disingenuous defendants. Regardless of the results of the test - which are inadmissible at trial due to issues with the reliability of the technology - the assistant state's attorney (ASA) in charge of the case would also perform a [...] review of all the evidence."
> though they know these kinds of tests can be unreliable, being confronted with the chance to take one can filter out disingenuous defendants
So basically does that mean that although they don't trust the polygraph, they trust the defendant's trust in the polygraph? That seems shaky and subject to change.
No, they are saying it filters out some portion of the defendants. The article also says they carry out a fresh review of the case, and:
"The ASA shall confirm that no other probative forensic testing can be conducted and that no other witnesses can be identified and interviewed," the protocol reads. "At the end of this review, if both the ASA and supervising ASA(s) either no longer believe there exists a moral certainty of the defendant's guilt or believe there no longer exists a reasonable likelihood of conviction, then the case shall be dismissed without prejudice."
So, basically: The defendant asserts they're innocent and are prepared to take a polygraph and there is insufficient evidence or no real prospect of prosecution anyway.
> According to a theory put forward by economics professor Peter Leeson, trial by ordeal may have been effective at sorting the guilty from the innocent. On the assumption that defendants were believers in divine intervention for the innocent, then only the truly innocent would choose to endure a trial; guilty defendants would confess or settle cases instead. Therefore, the theory goes, church and judicial authorities could routinely rig ordeals so that the participants—presumably innocent—could pass them. To support this theory, Leeson points to the great latitude given to the priests in administering the ordeal and interpreting the results of the ordeal. He also points to the overall high exoneration rate of accused persons undergoing the ordeal, when intuitively one would expect a very high proportion of people carrying a red hot iron to be badly burned and thus fail the ordeal.
This is exactly the same thing, but with an ordeal that poses no actual physical risk even without cheating by the officiator.
They've publicly admitted that their test will have its result ignored. Any lawyer will quickly learn this and tell their clients, "you might as well, even if you fail, even if you are actually guilty (two entirely unrelated variables), they will still revisit your case".
What a waste of time, money and credibility. And this is the new, improved system. And it truly does seem better than what went before it. The mind boggles to comprehend the brokeness of this.
The polygraph is a fig leaf for the real process, which is getting a bureaucracy to admit it made a mistake. Without unravelling too much of the process or making anyone fear for their job.
It sounds ridiculous that "the defendant might actually be innocent" is something that hitherto was excluded in the process.
You and GP really need to read the article fully. Even without doing other research, you dismiss the concept based on a false premise that the article itself clarifies..
"they know these kinds of tests can be unreliable, being confronted with the chance to take one can filter out disingenuous defendants."
So if I was charged with a crime and when offered a polygraph test and I refused it on the grounds that it is unreliable I would be treated as being likely to be "disingenuous" and therefore presumably more likely to be guilty?
Edit: I meant more likely to be thought of as guilty.
In other words it's the modern equivalent of the ancient practice of trial by fire.
Except that in this case the defendant should have a defense attorney who will tell them the truth, that the ordeal itself is a farce and the real test is whether agreeing to suffer it will convince the prosecutor.
Which destroys its value as a filter and converts it back into its true form, a waste of tax dollars on pseudoscience BS. (And a method for prosecutors to coerce innocent defendants into giving up their right to remain silent or communicate through their attorney.)
William Casey, who was Reagan's first CIA director, told journalists that passing polygraphs is an easily learned skill. Some may not need the training: if there is no psychological stress involved in lying, why should there be physical symptoms?
Which is still irrelevant here. The willingness - or not - to take the test acts as a filter. Beyond that, a case review is carried out. If the case review finds they have sufficient evidence, the test does not matter. If the case review finds they have insufficient evidence, then you should not have been charged in the first place.