Lie detectors don’t work

Lie detectors have been used to send 160 sex offenders back to prison, Ministry of Justice figures have revealed.

Probation officers have sent paedophiles and convicted sex offenders back behind bars after flagging up concerns about their behaviour or the answers they gave to the polygraph tests.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) started using lie detectors on convicted sex offenders in August 2014 and around 50 people are tested on the machines every month.

Officials have the power to send sex offenders back to prison if the results of the cross examination on the lie detectors trigger concerns for public safety.

Bit of a problem that, isn’t it?

Psychologically they can:

“The machine says you’re lying”

“Yes, sob, sob”

But other than that they don’t. Not the basis upon which we should be jugging people.

19 comments on “Lie detectors don’t work

  1. But Tim its obvious that being male, probably white, and suspected sex offenders, they have no rights.

  2. The state gets to try it’s new idea’s on the soft targets first (sex offenders) but once we’ve all become accustomed to them, they’ll move to extend it to other crimes.

    Next thing you know, you’ll be hooked up to a lie detector and shown a picture of two men who are ‘having’ a baby. If you think that can’t happen it’s off to prison for non-PC thoughts.

  3. Who has given these MoJ cunts latitude to bring in shite like this? Or do they now do as they please and tell the polipork later? If they can be arsed.

    Sack the SCS now sans compo and pensions (tm 2018).

    And lets have the said polipigs have to endure regular -in public- polygraphs re their policies, history and lifestyle. That might be interesting. Esp with the FFC and the Czech Spy.

  4. This surely can’t be compulsory? And hence, why don’t they simply say “these things don’t work, here is some evidence”, that’s it?

    Reading the article – is this the offending line:

    Sex offenders on license are subject to a strict set of conditions, and any offender who fails to comply risks being returned to prison or facing further punishment.

    Ie, you don’t get out in the first place unless you sign up to be their bitch?

  5. Why are they out in the first place? There is no cure for crime. There is no way to rehabilitate prisoners.

    As we cannot execute them the only solution is to lock them up for as long as possible. No parole. No time off. Nothing. Three strikes and harsh mandatory minimums. Works for the US.

  6. “Works for the US.”

    No it doesn’t.

    ” There is no cure for crime. There is no way to rehabilitate prisoners.”

    A substantial percentage of criminals are people who made a foolish mistake. They will do their time and do no more harm. It is a big injustice to simply make decrees as above.

    Likewise you cannot ignore that substantial numbers of people are fitted up and/or wrongly accused under bullshit Marxist fads. Sex crime being a very particular such fad these last few years.

    As ever SMFS you assume that injustices such as go on all the time will never touch you and yours. Lets hope you are right.

  7. SMFS – of course there is no cure for crime, no one has suggested there was. There is however punishment for crime and that we do time limit for most offenders. You have unauthorised sex with someone you won’t generally spend the rest of your life in prison. Instead you get to spend weeks, months or years depending on the court case and decisions.

  8. “Next thing you know, you’ll be hooked up to a lie detector and shown a picture of two men who are ‘having’ a baby. If you think that can’t happen it’s off to prison for non-PC thoughts.”

    “Why are they out in the first place? There is no cure for crime. There is no way to rehabilitate prisoners.

    As we cannot execute them the only solution is to lock them up for as long as possible. No parole. No time off. Nothing. Three strikes and harsh mandatory minimums. Works for the US.”

    Matthew 7:1-2.

  9. ‘One case heard how one offender who was released on condition they didn’t use the internet was found by the test to be lying about not having logged on since his release.’

    Uhhh . . . that’s like releasing on condition they never use a phone again. Of course he used the internet.

    I’m fine with kiddie fiddlers being locked up for life, as I don’t think that that perversion – and taking action on it – can be cured. Except I’d put them on an island so they could function more normally, just away from society. A 21st century Devils Island, without the torture and butterflies.

  10. “I’m fine with kiddie fiddlers being locked up for life, as I don’t think that that perversion – and taking action on it – can be cured.”

    The desire can’t be cured, but it isn’t the desire that’s illegal, it’s the act.

    Can a car thief be ‘cured’ of the desire to drive a fast car? Can a bank robber be ‘cured’ of the desire to possess a big pile of money? No. But if we were to jail-for-life everyone who wanted to drive fast cars or have lots of money, the jails would be very full.

    What are you actually jailing people for? Merely wanting to commit a crime? For not having enough self-control to prevent themselves? For future crimes they’ve not actually committed yet but would if you didn’t jail them? Or “just in case”?

    And what happens when the SJWs get hold of this fine precedent you’ve just set? Never give society any weapon that you would not be willing to see in the hands of your enemies.

    I mean, its not like political incorrectness can be cured, either, is it?

  11. Mr Ecks – “No it doesn’t.”

    Yes it does. Apart from the Black propensity to murder each other, New York is now considerably safer than London.

    “A substantial percentage of criminals are people who made a foolish mistake. They will do their time and do no more harm. It is a big injustice to simply make decrees as above.”

    A substantial proportion of crime is not. The average thief admits that in the year before he was locked up he committed something like 147 break ins. These are not people who make a one-time mistake. Except, I suppose, for those inside for murdering their wife.

    But if you like I am happy to support a system that gives a short sharp shock to first time offenders, a long time with nothing but porridge and a cold cell with twenty other men to second time offenders and life with no chance whatsoever of parole for third time offenders. It is Biblical even.

    “Likewise you cannot ignore that substantial numbers of people are fitted up and/or wrongly accused under bullshit Marxist fads. Sex crime being a very particular such fad these last few years.”

    Yes that is true. But what is the alternative? We are stuck with this system. Complain more. The only other choice we have is the colourful vibrant Latin American option of dragging suspected criminals out of their shanties and burning them to death. We may get there in the end.

    “As ever SMFS you assume that injustices such as go on all the time will never touch you and yours. Lets hope you are right.”

    No, I don’t. I assume, probably quite rightly, that the chance of me being murdered by someone let out after their one thousandth offense is considerably greater than the chances of the police fitting me up. Which it is.

    Martin – “of course there is no cure for crime, no one has suggested there was.”

    Our whole justice system is based on the notion there is a cure for crime.

    “There is however punishment for crime and that we do time limit for most offenders.”

    Prison officials openly say that they are not in the punishment business so I am inclined to disagree with the first part. We do time limit most offenders. Well actually we don’t. Most offenders walk with no jail time at all. But of those that get jail time, get out soon enough. That is the problem. Letting people out does not work. We ought to stop that.

    “You have unauthorised sex with someone you won’t generally spend the rest of your life in prison. Instead you get to spend weeks, months or years depending on the court case and decisions.”

    Yes I had noticed. What is the point of your post?

    NiV – “Matthew 7:1-2.”

    I am happy at any time to be judged by the same standards I judge criminals. Any time.

    NiV – “The desire can’t be cured, but it isn’t the desire that’s illegal, it’s the act.”

    That depends if you look at this from a penal or a medical perspective. I suggest child sexual offenders ought to be treated in the medical system – locked up until they are cured.

    “Can a car thief be ‘cured’ of the desire to drive a fast car? Can a bank robber be ‘cured’ of the desire to possess a big pile of money? No.”

    Yes, actually. Most of them age out of it. And castration works very effectively.

    “And what happens when the SJWs get hold of this fine precedent you’ve just set? Never give society any weapon that you would not be willing to see in the hands of your enemies.”

    They have already.

  12. These are people released on licence, not having completed their sentence. Fearful of the headlines of “freed to kill/rape/whatever again’ the authorities responsible for them are doing their duty by applying some criteria. It’s OK if the actual sentence is applied via due process. Anybody who thinks the conditions of licence unreasonable can stay inside, can’t they?

  13. On the efficacy of lie detectors, two words: Aldrich Ames

    You might be able to use them for screening, but for courtroom level proof, they just don’t work.

    @NiV
    If you are going to quote the Bible as authority, you will need to accept the whole of it.

  14. I’ve always looked on “polygraph tests” as an unmistakeable symptom of the loonier aspects of American life. Why in God’s name are we falling for this nonsense?

  15. “I am happy at any time to be judged by the same standards I judge criminals. Any time.”

    Is that “Everyone must do as I say” or “Everyone must do what the legislators say” or what?

    “That depends if you look at this from a penal or a medical perspective.”

    Medical ethics generally requires informed consent.

    You can look at it from a public safety point of view, which is how sectioning usually works, but that’s neither strictly medical nor penal.

    “I suggest child sexual offenders ought to be treated in the medical system – locked up until they are cured.”

    SJW version: – “I suggest racists, sexists, and homophobes ought to be treated in the medical system – locked up until they are cured.” What’s the difference?

    “Yes, actually. Most of them age out of it.”

    Really? “Here’s a big pile of money for free, old person, would you like it?” “No thanks. I’m good.” Unless you’re talking about Bill Gates…

    “If you are going to quote the Bible as authority, you will need to accept the whole of it.”

    I was trying for “pithy” again! 🙂

    But no, I don’t have to accept the whole of it. If a quote is a particularly apposite way of explaining a concept, I’ll use it. That doesn’t imply that everything else said by the same author, or even by different authors in works collated into the same volume, is equally apposite or sensible.

    “I’ve always looked on “polygraph tests” as an unmistakeable symptom of the loonier aspects of American life. Why in God’s name are we falling for this nonsense?”

    Because we always have.

    We’ve always needed some way to distinguish truth from lies, and have invented plenty of beliefs about it. Some people think you can tell if someone is telling the truth from their body language – can they look you in the eye when they say it? Some think you can tell from their handshake. We used to operate on the basis of various oaths and honour systems – if someone gives their “word of honour”, or swears on the Bible, or on the Flag, or whatever symbols society imbues with supernatural respect, such a statement can be relied upon absolutely.

    Polygraphs are unreliable, but so is every other method we’ve invented. That still doesn’t stop courts administering oaths and affirmations.

  16. NiV – “Is that “Everyone must do as I say” or “Everyone must do what the legislators say” or what?”

    Ideally both but the relevance of this is what precisely?

    “Medical ethics generally requires informed consent.”

    Do they? How frightfully interesting.

    “SJW version: – “I suggest racists, sexists, and homophobes ought to be treated in the medical system – locked up until they are cured.” What’s the difference?”

    Well child sex abuse is actually a problem. But we are getting to your version with the SJWs in charge so what does it matter? You are defending a system that no longer exists. Liberal Britain is a historical curiosity. The only question now is whether we are going put them behind the barbed wire or are they going to put us.

    “Really? “Here’s a big pile of money for free, old person, would you like it?” “No thanks. I’m good.” Unless you’re talking about Bill Gates…”

    Relevance? Yet again you seem to be posting for the sake of posting.

    “If a quote is a particularly apposite way of explaining a concept, I’ll use it.”

    Except it is irrelevant. You are cherry picking because you think it will work against Christians. We no longer live in a Christian world. In the post-Christian world, as in the pre- and the Christian worlds, criminals need to be judged. That is why we have policemen. That quote is irrelevant. Child sex offenders in particular need to be judged. With some care and sensitivity admittedly.

    “That doesn’t imply that everything else said by the same author, or even by different authors in works collated into the same volume, is equally apposite or sensible.”

    See? Hypocrisy. As usual.

    “We’ve always needed some way to distinguish truth from lies, and have invented plenty of beliefs about it.”

    And so we rely on juries. Which are no better than lie detectors.

  17. “Well child sex abuse is actually a problem.”

    No. People wanting to is not a problem. People having a sexual inclination that way is not a problem. Only people doing it for real is an actual problem.

    Jailing people for doing it for real I don’t have a problem with – with all the usual safeguards about fair trials and insistence on actual evidence. Jailing people for merely wanting to commit a crime is not a precedent I want to set.

    “You are defending a system that no longer exists. Liberal Britain is a historical curiosity. The only question now is whether we are going put them behind the barbed wire or are they going to put us.”

    Thanks. This is precisely my point. That you are exactly the same as them in methods and philosophy, you just want to enforce a slightly different set of arbitrary rules on everyone.

    And there is no ‘question’ about it. Every generation puts the misfits and rebels of the previous generation behind barbed wire. The homophobes used to jail homosexuals. Now the SJWs will jail homophobes, In 20 years time the next generation will jail SJWs. And so it goes on, forever.

    Liberal Britain, if it no longer exists (and I think it’s still a lot more liberal than you think) could only have become a historical curiosity because Britons have made this choice – that they would rather live with a system that they know will one day put them behind barbed wire, than give up their own demand to put their opponents behind barbed wire.

    The choice isn’t whether it’s them or you behind barbed wire. The only choice is between *all* of us (eventually) or *none* of us behind barbed wire. The system itself is the problem, not just that the wrong people are in control of it.

  18. @ NiV

    The choice isn’t whether it’s them or you behind barbed wire. The only choice is between *all* of us (eventually) or *none* of us behind barbed wire. The system itself is the problem, not just that the wrong people are in control of it.

    I’m perversely interested in what your solution to this would be. I imagine it involves us all wearing vagina hats but I may be pleasantly surprised that it has some basis in reality.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.