[ithkuil]

"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."

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> 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.

[vidarh]

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.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> No, they are saying it filters out some portion of the defendants.

Yes, they filter out the ones who

- believe in polygraphs and

- believe they would fail

[thaumasiotes]

We have the same idea today about the older trial by ordeal. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_ordeal#Theoretical_ap... :

> 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.

[arethuza]

From that article:

"The use of the ordeal in medieval England was very sensitive to status and reputation in the community."

Sounds like that part hasn't changed much.

[ZeroGravitas]

This just makes it worse!

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.

[morgante]

Presumably if you're actually guilty you don't want them going back and collecting more evidence on your case.

[vidarh]

Maybe - they do actually mention one case in the article where the review yielded more evidence and made their case stronger.