Why do people still believe in polygraphs?

I

Except Ford is a psychologist and if we are to believe her boyfriend, she gave tips to a friend on how to beat a polygraph.

You beat me to it.

This is similar to the notion of trial by ordeal.

If you're innocent what do you have to worry about by sitting on a burning pyre?

Polygraphs can be a legitimate tool, but not as a final determination of truthfulness.

Apparently, the FBI subjects job applicants to polygraphs (which some try to beat with tips from their PhD friends). If they turn the applicant away based only on the polygraph test, it is an injustice. However, if they have a rational reason to believe the applicant is lying to them the polygraph might seal the deal.

Game theory suggests that no matter who was telling the truth, the accuser should always take a lie detector, and the nominee should not. The nominee has more to lose.

Clearly Dr. Ford took the polygraph because she wanted evidence to support her claims. This is even more advantageous to her since she can take it without any risk and simply hide the results if they don't support her. She had nothing to lose by taking the polygraph. There was no risk to her even if she failed the polygraph

And Kavanaugh refused to take it for the same reason, he wanted to avoid any evidence to prove that he was wrong. The polygraph would have been public and he would have risked everything if he failed.

There are four possibilities.

- Dr Ford is lying and Kavanaugh is telling the truth.
- Dr. Ford is telling the truth and Kavanaugh is lying.
- They are both telling the truth (e.g. it happened and Kavanaugh honestly doesn't remember).
- The are both lying (e.g. Kavanaugh remembers being at the party but Dr. Ford made up the story of the assault).

In any of these four cases it is to Dr. Ford's advantage to take the polygraph. And it was to Kavanaugh's advantage to refuse it.

Both sides played the game, and Kavanaugh was successful in his nomination. The outcome doesn't prove anything.

The outcome doesn't prove anything.

Those who want to believe Ford will not be detoured.

Ford's boyfriend reported that he was present when she gave her friend tips on how to beat a polygraph. The very same friend who her best friend claims tried to pressure her to change her testimony.

Could he be lying? Of course, he could, but why would he?

Blech --- yet another reason he should never have sat on a federal court.

I never said that it did. It just didn't make much sense to me.

I've already responded to this. I was discussing a hypothetical unsophisticated individual, not Dr. Ford.

OK. Let's discuss Ford. What do you think of the value of her polygraph?

yup

Why? Because polygraphs can't possibly have any utility?

Because polygraphs are not lie detectors and hence are useless in any fair trial. And because a federal judge should not be in the business of rationalizing the use of unfair trials. If the police have fooled themselves about polygraphs being lie detectors, they're practicing junk science. If the police know polygraphs are not lie detectors but tell witnesses or suspects that they are, they're deliberately deceiving suspects or witnesses. Either scenario violates due process. I'm against that, and against judges enabling it.

Finn, I didn't watch the hearing. I've heard that she was persuasive. As far as the value of her polygraph results look at it this way: if she'd "failed" the test it would certainly have been bad optics and we're unlikely to have even heard about it. I honestly don't know enough about the circumstances surrounding her test, who conducted it, when it was done, etc. Given that the tester probably asked a number of probing questions about the alleged incident with Kavanaugh, for her to have "passed" the test does suggest that she was calm and in control of herself. So, she's either an excellent liar, or she was assaulted but by someone else and has a memory problem, or Brett Kavanaugh actually did what she claims he did. I do think that Kavanaugh may have "edited" some aspects of his high school experiences but it's a done deal and not worth further investigation.

Yes they are useless as evidence in a trial. but Kavanaugh didn't argue otherwise.

The police not only deceive suspects all of the time, they are also permitted to.

Do you give any credence to her boyfriend's claim?

Says who? Can you cite me a statute to this effect? If not, the permission comes from some judges and their interpretation of due process --- an interpretation I can reject or endorse when a judge applies for a job. If you like judges permitting police to lie to suspects, you are free to support him. I don't, and so I won't.

I haven't even seen the guy. Sure, it could be true, although her friend emphatically denies the claim. I'd like to know more about the circumstances, especially why McLean would allow someone to witness her being coached this way and if the ex-boyfriend is reliable. Has he been given a polygraph exam? (j/k)

Says our body of law, and I don't need to cite chapter and verse to prove it so. It is well established.

The police have two suspects in separate rooms. They "lie" to one and tell him the other is flipping on him. This has been accepted as proper time after time.

You're free to reject Common Law if you choose, but it won't change it.

Oh, so it's because you said so. That settles it, of course.