Lie detector tests...

[andycal]

... oh crud, Teflon Tony's gone all bonkers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4554763.stm

Sex offenders released from jail could face lie-detector tests to check they are abiding by bail conditions.

Anyone know of any studies into polygraphs? Might be writing to my MP...

[Garrette]

I think studies exist demonstrating that polygraphs are unreliable, but I don't think you need bother.

Just point out that there are zero studies demonstrating they work.

[dann]

Apparently they don't even want to win 1 mio. $$!YA WANNA BET A MILLION DOC?

Reader George W. Maschke of AntiPolygraph.org gets feisty:

Dr. Louis Rovner, a prominent California polygraph operator, has (through PR Newswire) issued a press release titled, "Polygraph Unbeatable, Says California Psychologist." All too often, such publicly-made claims by those with vested interests in the perpetuation of polygraphy (a make-believe science that offers make-believe security) go unchallenged.
So, I've publicly challenged Dr. Rovner to support his claim, pointing out scientific research that contradicts it along with the examples of several notorious spies and a serial killer who have beaten the polygraph. See, A Public Challenge to Dr. Louis I. Rovner.

Dr. Drew C. Richardson, who until his retirement was the FBI Laboratory Division's senior scientific expert on polygraphs, has a standing Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge to the polygraph community to prove its claimed (but never demonstrated) ability to detect polygraph countermeasures (techniques for passing or beating the lie detector). Dr. Richardson's challenge has gone over 1,000 days without any polygraph operator having mustered the self-confidence to accept it.

Well, the JREF will add a million bucks to Dr. Richardson's offer to sweeten it, but we'll still have no takers. They're very big on talk, short on stepping up to the plate.... I wonder why?James Randi's weekly newsletter, November 12, 2004

[John Jackson]

I believe that the initial results they get from using the polygraph look very good.

However, this is an illusion. What happens is that those sex offenders who are frightened of the polygraph admit to a load of previous offences and the figures look really good. That has nothing to do with the long term prevention of re-offending.

It sounds like a plausible idea if you believe in the infallibility of the polygraph (and many do). I wonder how many parents would be happy knowing that their children were being protected by something that not only doesn't work, but can be fooled into giving false negatives by the use of countermeasures?

Hopefully, there'll be a huge outcry if this nonsense is ever introduced.

[songstress]

'Offender Management Service.'

Another unelected, useless quango.

Bring back National Service!


Patsy.

[songstress]

...to add....Why do we need more legislation and yet more 'initiatives'? Why don't we use the laws we already have? We have quangos, ASBOS, Youth Partnership Agreements, Parenting Agreements, Acceptible Behaviour Contracts and Sure Start Projects coming out of our ears. The more these things are promoted, the worse the problem seems to get. Also, the notion that every 'lifestyle' is equally as acceptible is another thorn that'll eventually break the camel's back.

No wonder the place is going to the dogs...

Ggrrr!

Patsy.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Songstress:

Also, the notion that every 'lifestyle' is equally as acceptible is another thorn that'll eventually break the camel's back
Excuse me?

Can you clarify, please?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Garrette
Excuse me?

Can you clarify, please?
Yes Songstress' comment does seem to have certain connotations doesn't it?

What 'lifestyles' are you referring to Patsy?

[songstress]

I mean - people choosing to enter single parenthood as a lifestyle choice, as an example. Without a male role model in the children's lives, and being brought up on benefits as a lifestyle choice. Not as a consequence of circumstance, but as a matter of choice.

That's what I meant.

If you thought I was referring to gay lifestyles, I wasn't. Being homosexual isn't a 'lifestyle choice', it's the way some people are made. Very few homosexuals cause the social misery that we see in towns and cities across the area.

Patsy.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by songstress
I mean - people choosing to enter single parenthood as a lifestyle choice, as an example. Without a male role model in the children's lives, and being brought up on benefits as a lifestyle choice. Not as a consequence of circumstance, but as a matter of choice.
There will be a lot of kids a hell of a lot better off growing up in single parent families than with abusive, useless fathers.

A male role model isn't automatically a good thing - a lot of male (and female) parental role models are pretty bloody awful influences on children.

But I must agree with you about people who choose to live on benefits. I knew a few of them when I was living in Brighton, and they seemed to build up massive resentment and persecution complexes. Living on benefits saps your energy, drive, enthusiasm, joy and self-respect at the best of times - choosing to live like that permanently is a terrible idea.
A(lthough, obviously, it must be stressed that this is restricted to those who choose to live on benefits.)
And it's hard to judge how much street crime comes from people living on benefits as opposed to working. I would have thought those working would have more money for the drink and drugs that often fuel the antisocial behaviour. Although a lot of it does come from boredom and lack of structured defined rules.
Tough one to call.

[Garrette]

Songstress,

I didn't know what lifestyle you meant, gay or otherwise. But it did seem a sweeping judgment of whatever you find unpalatable.

In the main, I agree with Ashles' comments, though I would add that much of what might be called "quality of life" crimes in the US is committed by those "on benefits". Personal experience leads me to believe that they are committed more by those on benefits by choice than by those not by choice. The welfare housing in my own hometown are quite small and rundown but with very very cheap rent. Eligibility is supposed to be strictly controlled, yet it is not uncommon to see new Mercedes parked outside them.

I'll admit right now before I'm challenged that I don't have the numbers to back up this statement, though at one point I did. So if you wish to dispute me I'll just say you win.

[Yaotl]

Originally posted by songstress
I mean - people choosing to enter single parenthood as a lifestyle choice, as an example. Without a male role model in the children's lives, and being brought up on benefits as a lifestyle choice. Not as a consequence of circumstance, but as a matter of choice.

The first two statements are not mutually inclusive.