tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post5192717285276230456..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: TX Court of Criminal Appeals okays 'trial by polygraph'Gritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-62087189604936813092015-02-08T19:36:46.379-06:002015-02-08T19:36:46.379-06:00It's a decision particulary aimed at the poor ...It's a decision particulary aimed at the poor and Black African Americans who are released from prison and tring to succeed. 90% of prisoner released are Black. There is no reasonable expectations for the authority, as the Polygraph Examiner can weigh and formulate his own reasoning for a price which is usally paid to him by the Government or the Parole Board or the District Attorney's Office.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-58292114246443955492012-05-19T15:27:07.797-05:002012-05-19T15:27:07.797-05:00I haven't seen it mentioned on your site, but ...I haven't seen it mentioned on your site, but last week the CCA granted the appellant's motion for rehearing. It was a 5-4 decision, so granting rehearing could be a sign that one of the judges has changed his mind.<br /><br />http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=273944Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-67613592850579948592012-03-19T09:32:28.385-05:002012-03-19T09:32:28.385-05:00I think what's being missed in this blog and a...I think what's being missed in this blog and a lot of responses to it is the fact that the CCA has only authorized polygraphs to be used in PROBATION REVOCATION HEARINGS, not original criminal trials. The difference is in the burden of proof. At an original criminal trial, a defendant has to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (99% likelihood of guilt). At a revocation hearing, preponderance of the evidence (51% likelihood of guilt) is sufficient. Remember, someone who is on probation has already been found guilty of an offense punishable by imprisonment. No one is entitled to probation; it is an act of mercy on the part of the court that can be revoked any time a judge finds it is more than likely that conditions of probation have been violated. <br /><br />As it relates to polygraphs, no one would argue that polygraphs are right all the time. However, there is actually more research supporting their general accuracy than would be applicable to pseudoscience. Polygraphs may not be right often enough to count as proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but, especially when re-tests and multiple examiners are used, they easily satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard. Use of polygraphs is standard in sex offender treatment and supervision programs nationwide, and this would not be the case if they had no more scientific merit than pseudoscience.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-61148674686414356782012-03-17T20:47:42.355-05:002012-03-17T20:47:42.355-05:00Over the past 25 years I have taken a polygraph fo...Over the past 25 years I have taken a polygraph for every law enforcement job that I have ever applied for. Every time I have made repeated lies while taking the polygraph. And you know what? Each and everytime I have beat the machine and PASSED the polygraph!! Dozens of polygraphs, all given by different examiners, with federal & state agencies - all beat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-81690016353754058322012-03-11T18:38:02.335-05:002012-03-11T18:38:02.335-05:00Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. But it&#...Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. But it's not your fault for believing that as anytime a teacher is caught committing a child sex crime it is front-page news for days. Whereas when a cop is caught it is relegated to the back page in small format to insure the least amount of publicity possible in order to keep citizens from losing faith in their police. There are less than 1-million police officers in this country, but more than 8-million school teachers and coaches. Yet, even with that ratio there are still more police officers convicted of child sex crimes. Sex crimes are not about sex. Psychiatrist have known for decades that sex crimes are about power and the need to control others, and no group of people care more about control and power as do those who are in law enforcement. If we tracked ALL sex crimes committed by police officers instead of just child sex offenses, it would be a full-time job for several employees. And if we tracked all sex crimes committed by current AND former law enforcement officers, we would need an army to keep up with them all. We rarely document cases here that involve retired cops, 99.9% are current officers. Add to that the number of ex-cops who quit or were terminated because of theft, brutality, etc. then the numbers would be atrocious. Ask any pedophile what his first choice for a career was, and they will almost always admit to wanting to be a cop. Go figure....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-33645742038710986382012-03-10T22:32:31.321-06:002012-03-10T22:32:31.321-06:00"Once again I am compelled to remind everyone..."Once again I am compelled to remind everyone that more police officers are convicted of child sex crimes than all other professions combined."<br /><br />Actually Teachers is number one followed by bus drivers, camp counsellors, photographers, and sports coaches. Police officers are not even close. Get your facts straight before posting such outrageous lies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-38826312588682182222012-03-10T21:46:06.919-06:002012-03-10T21:46:06.919-06:00"Once again I am compelled to remind everyone..."Once again I am compelled to remind everyone that more police officers are convicted of child sex crimes than all other professions combined"<br /><br />Thats the biggest bunch of bullshit I've ever heard. Where did you come up with those stats? I'm a police officer that invesigates sex crimes and what I've found is usually these perps put themselves in a position to come in contact with lots of children. Police officers during the course of their duties rarely have contact with children. Sex offenders come from all profession and yes some cops are sex offenders and they should be given the maximum sentence allowed. But to say cops make up the majority of pedophile cases is a blatant lie. In my 15 years of a investigating sex crimes i've known of two cases involving police officers. We could solve the polygraph problem with probationers if sex offenders would get more time than say auto thieves. First offense for harming a child should be 10 to 15 years and a second offense should be life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-22980998693150915392012-03-10T11:54:19.775-06:002012-03-10T11:54:19.775-06:00Hey Grits, it doesn't look like anyone has men...Hey Grits, it doesn't look like anyone has mentioned this so far, so please allow me.<br /><br />The owner/operators of every single Polygraph business in Texas is a former and/or active; police officers, detectives, private detectives, prosecutor, judges. To hide that fact, sometimes the business is under the name of a family member or pet.<br /><br />*I've been pulled from a cell, handed back my wallet & forced to pay $75 bucks cash (no receipt) to prove "my innocence". I was told that I was not telling the truth about my name and that I knew something about the crime. WTF? Exactly. I asked for my money back and was taken back to my cell, released the next day. *10 yrs. later a check revealed that the two jokers above were related. Say What?<br /><br />What are we learning today folks, besides that rodsmith it correct, Dewey is doomed & a couple of Anons. arn't cops? It's a Phucking scamola, job security for punks with a machine & an awesome tool used to revoke if you let it. Don't hire just anyone to represent you in a criminal matter, vett to ensure they are Real Criminal Defense Attorneys / Lawyers and make sure they are present for any & all tests. Thanks.Thomas R. Griffithhttp://www.projectnotguilty.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-22379070432571516012012-03-09T23:07:10.780-06:002012-03-09T23:07:10.780-06:00I once heard the director if a juvenike sex offend...I once heard the director if a juvenike sex offender treatment program call them "therapeutic polygraphs." He was not bothered at all by the fact that 1) there is no such thing and 2) polygraphs are not reliable indicators of truth or lies. Even worse was the fact that they were used until the operator said the juvenile had "passed" by admitting to all of the other sexual offenses he supposedly had commited but for which he had not been charged. And yes he could then be prosecuted for these new offenses bases upon his "confession." But if the polygraph showed he "failed" (meaning he wasn't admitting to all his other unknown offenses) then they would not release him from the program no matter how well he was doing with the therapy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-43372412258506376452012-03-09T09:54:36.087-06:002012-03-09T09:54:36.087-06:00Once again I am compelled to remind everyone that ...Once again I am compelled to remind everyone that more police officers are convicted of child sex crimes than all other professions combined. It's law enforcement's "dirty little secret", and one we are committed to exposing. Police officers use their positions of trust to violate our children. Their victims are threatened with physical harm and told no one will believe their word over that of a police officer. Please take a few minutes and visit our Facebook pages to learn why cops are so attracted to little children and why no child should ever be left alone with any child. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tribute-to-survivors-of-child-sexual-assault-by-law-enforcement-officers/180584842010594?sk=wallAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-7357835451446621062012-03-09T08:59:04.034-06:002012-03-09T08:59:04.034-06:00Polygraph tests are a joke. I failed the first one...Polygraph tests are a joke. I failed the first one I took because the tester insisted I was lying even though I was telling the truth. A few years later I passed a second polygraph even after telling the tester I was lying. <br /><br />Both tests were job related and had nothing to do with determining guilt or innocence of a crime. Regardless of what they are used for, however, you will never convince me that they work any better than a magic 8-ball.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-2141982315107842902012-03-09T08:34:11.480-06:002012-03-09T08:34:11.480-06:00There are no devices that can detect a lie! None! ...There are no devices that can detect a lie! None! The polygraph may measure some bodily function but not a person's conscience. Anyone who tells you a polygraph can catch a lie is lying!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-68776965599051594882012-03-09T07:54:02.200-06:002012-03-09T07:54:02.200-06:00I'm DOOMED !!!! It's a proven fact that I ...I'm DOOMED !!!! It's a proven fact that I cannot "pass" a polygraph test.DEWEYnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-10902371450931354392012-03-09T06:10:04.195-06:002012-03-09T06:10:04.195-06:00My husband served 4 years of a 5 year probated sen...My husband served 4 years of a 5 year probated sentence along with the mandated court ordered therapy. He always saw his probation officer when he was supposed to and never missed a therapy session and supposedly was doing a good job. He didn't do anything he wasn't supposed to do to stay within the guidelines of his probation requirements.<br /><br />During that time he passed 3 polygraphs On the 4th one, the examiner didn't like two of his answers. They didn't say he lied, they said they didn't like his answers. They revoked his probation, held him in jail without bond for 5 months during which time they kept pushing his hearing farther and farther ahead. First the judge thought he was somebody else and "had to reread his case file", Then they changed DAs twice, they each one of them needed at least two weeks to "reread the case files". <br /><br />Finally he got his day in court only to be given a 3 year sentence in TDC.<br /><br />To Anon 10:15, you obviously have never taken a polygraph or had one used on a family member, so before you go adding your two cents, you should get the facts on just exactly happens during a polygraph examination, and how the results are calculated.<br /><br />And to Anon 7:45, not all people who are labeled sex offenders and serve time really are sex offenders and I certainly hope you are never in a position to have to defend yourself from that. But then maybe your sanctimonious attitude will help you out there.<br /><br />In our house we know all too well what trial by polygraph means.RSO wifehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09125370082588943280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-53567983251777831782012-03-08T22:13:14.984-06:002012-03-08T22:13:14.984-06:00bring back the Gestapo, they always get the result...bring back the Gestapo, they always get the results you want!televipernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-63109750312807348892012-03-08T20:40:47.004-06:002012-03-08T20:40:47.004-06:00God help us. This is an insane decision - next w...God help us. This is an insane decision - next we'll be back to trial by ordeal. IT'S NOT RELIABLE. RELIABILITY IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE CORNERSTONE OF THE DAUBERT/KELLY CASES THAT THEORETICALL GOVERN THIS AREA. I can only assume that defense counsel may have let down this defendant badly, because anyone halfway competent should have kept this garbage out. Shame on whoever is responaible for this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-79958415541247535532012-03-08T19:45:23.490-06:002012-03-08T19:45:23.490-06:00Hey, I've got a great solution to this problem...Hey, I've got a great solution to this problem! Just don't commit a sex crime and you won't have to worry about about having to submit to a polygraph. Problem solved!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-21616806393180456802012-03-08T18:06:31.596-06:002012-03-08T18:06:31.596-06:00The Texas CCA is a total joke. The Texas Supreme C...The Texas CCA is a total joke. The Texas Supreme Court is little better. The fact that junk science is so prevalent in the Texas Judicial System just screams the fact that <i>lawyers</i> are <b>NOT</b> qualified to be judges in case that involve scientific, or technological evidence. What’s needed is a Judicial Review Board that is composed of folks that have backgrounds in physics, chemistry, engineering, technology, medicine, and so forth. Such a panel would be authorized to overrule both the Texas CCA, and the Texas Supreme Court in technical matters.<br /><br />To be a member of such a board one would have to have a strong background in the above subjects to even qualify for consideration. Another solution is modify the Texas CCA, and the Texas Supreme Court such that each had to have at least five members who are NOT lawyers, but have to be licensed physician, nurse, or other health care professional, a P.E., or hold an advanced degree in the natural sciences. Good sense will never prevail until the legal profession’s hold on the high courts is reigned in by checks and balances in the composition of these high courts.The Fishing Physicistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-16203623261964475002012-03-08T16:56:08.589-06:002012-03-08T16:56:08.589-06:00WE DONT ALLOW POLYGRAPHS TO PROVE INNOCENCE. HOW ...WE DONT ALLOW POLYGRAPHS TO PROVE INNOCENCE. HOW THE HELL CAN IT BE RELIABLE ENOUGH FOR ANYTHING ELSE? THE TREATMENT PROVIDERS AND THE P.O.s TELL THE POLYGRAPHERS WHAT CONCLUSION THEY WANT IT TO BE ANYWAY. THEY ARE ALL IN BED TOGETHER. CathyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-14945846499577015182012-03-08T16:44:06.162-06:002012-03-08T16:44:06.162-06:00I agree this is a slippery slope and all downhill....I agree this is a slippery slope and all downhill. I also agree that when it comes to sex offender charges, the consistutional rights go out the window. I don't think it would matter to me as much if the only ones labeled as a sex offender were the true sex offenders dangereous to society. But since the implementation of the wacked out AWA, everyone in the world is a sex offender. So, in essence, everyone responding to this article could of, at some time in their life, be labeled as a sex offender in today's terms. food for thought for all of you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-37413388022824706372012-03-08T16:38:26.161-06:002012-03-08T16:38:26.161-06:00""Polygraph exams are reasonably relied ...""Polygraph exams are reasonably relied upon by experts in sex offender psychotherapy," Meyers added."<br /><br />Ok, and again tell me who these experts are? I have yet to meet one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-82041983704216757342012-03-08T16:20:17.590-06:002012-03-08T16:20:17.590-06:00Shameful decision by the Court. Just plain Shamef...Shameful decision by the Court. Just plain Shameful!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-47068238544255539672012-03-08T15:04:50.096-06:002012-03-08T15:04:50.096-06:00personaly i think it's a crock. First it'...personaly i think it's a crock. First it's a complete violation of your right against self incrimination. Then there is the simple FACT IT DOES NOT WORK!<br /><br />Hell even the FBI has admitted it does NOTHING but scare people. Then there is the 1,000's of reports it is a FRAUD!<br /><br />think i'm kidding. Just visit<br /><br />http://antipolygraph.org/index.shtml<br /><br />i know it's junk. I've got a brother you could hook up a noon and ask him if the sun was out and he could lie and say NO and PASS!<br /><br /><br />of course you could say the guy brought it on himself. I would REFUSE to take one. Of course just mentioning you know about the above site means they would NEVER give you one!rodsmithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-2495649922132491872012-03-08T11:06:33.003-06:002012-03-08T11:06:33.003-06:00No, 10:15, you need to re-read, slowly, so you'...No, 10:15, you need to re-read, slowly, so you'll comprehend: I said it's one thing if the polygraph is one element among a "panoply" of evidence the expert relies upon but unacceptable as a stand-alone.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-87769951747894666652012-03-08T10:15:09.944-06:002012-03-08T10:15:09.944-06:00So you think it's okay to use a polygraph if i...So you think it's okay to use a polygraph if it's being used to establish "actual innocence," but it's not if you're trying to see if sex offenders might be re-offending? Typical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com