Re: What is the reliability?

There are two kinds of errors. False positives and false negatives. If the false positive rate was 1/100, would you feel comfortable using it as the whole trial? I wouldn't! In a complex case you can interview way more than 100 people, and you'd certainly wind up going down the wrong trail.

1 error in a hundred is ground for an warrant, not material for trial. I would tolerate error rates in the 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 10,000 for minor crimes where the only penalty is a fine. I would want something on the order of 1 in 100,000 before it was considered evidence in a criminal case, and something more then 1 in 1,000,000 before I would consider convicting on any one peice of evidence.

But there are a lot of subtle factors, such as how many errors are false positives and false negatives. Can the device give us any indication of how sure it is a particular statement is true? How does asking the same question again effect things? How does self deception register on the device? How do unclear memories register? Can it pick up on technicly correct but intentionally evasive answers?

Alternately suppose that over the time between the event and the trial I have convinced myself of a lie. See false memory syndrome. Many of those "abuse victims" would have passed any test for whether they were lying. They were telling things as they remember them. There is no discernable difference between a false memory and a real one. (Other than the fact that one didn't really happen.)

You are correct, this would not stop all cases. But clearing the backlog of cases where the guilty party can be forced to admit it, would let the courts concentrate on the cases where guilt isn't so clear.

If the device is reliable enough, it's existance would be enough to keep a lot of cases out of court. The vast majority of all guilty parties are well aware of it, and would admit guilt or take a plea rather then go to court.

Just think what such a device would do to SCO's suit. They wouldn't dare bring such a suit if there was a risk the CEO could be put on the stand and forced to admit the goal was to extort money out of companies. And what about things like the OJ case, where the wealthy can buy a huge advantage in court.

Jay

It is nice to talk about 1/100,000 odds from this technique, but that isn't realistic. About 1% of the population has schizophrenia, about 1/3 of those do not respond to treatment. Schizophrenia is far from the only disorder striking people that renders people's understanding of reality suspect at best. Go on a fishing expedition and you'll get some..interesting..accusations backed up by your lie detector.

I already mentioned false memory syndrome. There are about 300 million people in the USA. If we estimate that about a million people "recovered" memories of abuse, that is about the same order of magnitude as untreatable schizophrenia. But this time you have normal people with no discernable disorder (other than exposure to bad therapists) who will sincerely say that what didn't happen, did. They'll say that they remember it - and they do! Furthermore there is nothing vague or wishy-washy about the memories. They are perfectly vivid.

Furthermore if you go through the traditional problems with eyewitness reports, most of them show up with this technique. Lying is only one of many serious problems with eyewitness reports. Most of the issues have to do with how memory is laid down, resulting in people being honestly convinced of an incorrect version of events.

This has already put an upper limit on the reliability of this technique which is orders of magnitude away from what you were hoping for.

And finally the original motivation for the 5'th amendment is not eliminated by tools like this. There are many laws on the books which lots of people are not in compliance with. Take something as minor as traffic tickets. "What was your drive yesterday, how many streets did you go above the speed limit on? What would those tickets total? Shall we retroactively ticket you for the day before yesterday as well?" When it comes to something like illegal drugs, well I'd wager that most of us either have violated those laws or could name someone else who has.

The ability to intimidate virtually anyone you want with selective enforcement of existing laws is more than bad enough to justify the existence of the fifth in my books. And I think that most here and in the general public would agree. In the end it really doesn't matter whether you are threatening someone with trumped up charges or with a whole series of real charges. Either way you're handing the government a potent threat that can be used to intimidate whoever they want.

If this technology works fairly well and becomes a substitute for our court system, as far as I'm concerned we'll have just taken a big step towards totalitarianism. Furthermore I have serious doubts about how well this technology can work.

Cheers,
Ben

Post #185,521 by JayMehaffey 11/30/04 12:33:50 AM Reply	Re: What is the reliability? There are two kinds of errors. False positives and false negatives. If the false positive rate was 1/100, would you feel comfortable using it as the whole trial? I wouldn't! In a complex case you can interview way more than 100 people, and you'd certainly wind up going down the wrong trail. 1 error in a hundred is ground for an warrant, not material for trial. I would tolerate error rates in the 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 10,000 for minor crimes where the only penalty is a fine. I would want something on the order of 1 in 100,000 before it was considered evidence in a criminal case, and something more then 1 in 1,000,000 before I would consider convicting on any one peice of evidence. But there are a lot of subtle factors, such as how many errors are false positives and false negatives. Can the device give us any indication of how sure it is a particular statement is true? How does asking the same question again effect things? How does self deception register on the device? How do unclear memories register? Can it pick up on technicly correct but intentionally evasive answers? Alternately suppose that over the time between the event and the trial I have convinced myself of a lie. See false memory syndrome. Many of those "abuse victims" would have passed any test for whether they were lying. They were telling things as they remember them. There is no discernable difference between a false memory and a real one. (Other than the fact that one didn't really happen.) You are correct, this would not stop all cases. But clearing the backlog of cases where the guilty party can be forced to admit it, would let the courts concentrate on the cases where guilt isn't so clear. If the device is reliable enough, it's existance would be enough to keep a lot of cases out of court. The vast majority of all guilty parties are well aware of it, and would admit guilt or take a plea rather then go to court. Just think what such a device would do to SCO's suit. They wouldn't dare bring such a suit if there was a risk the CEO could be put on the stand and forced to admit the goal was to extort money out of companies. And what about things like the OJ case, where the wealthy can buy a huge advantage in court. Jay
Post #185,636 by ben_tilly 11/30/04 6:39:16 PM Reply	The point - again - since you missed it It is nice to talk about 1/100,000 odds from this technique, but that isn't realistic. About 1% of the population has schizophrenia, about 1/3 of those do not respond to treatment. Schizophrenia is far from the only disorder striking people that renders people's understanding of reality suspect at best. Go on a fishing expedition and you'll get some..interesting..accusations backed up by your lie detector. I already mentioned false memory syndrome. There are about 300 million people in the USA. If we estimate that about a million people "recovered" memories of abuse, that is about the same order of magnitude as untreatable schizophrenia. But this time you have normal people with no discernable disorder (other than exposure to bad therapists) who will sincerely say that what didn't happen, did. They'll say that they remember it - and they do! Furthermore there is nothing vague or wishy-washy about the memories. They are perfectly vivid. Furthermore if you go through the traditional problems with eyewitness reports, most of them show up with this technique. Lying is only one of many serious problems with eyewitness reports. Most of the issues have to do with how memory is laid down, resulting in people being honestly convinced of an incorrect version of events. This has already put an upper limit on the reliability of this technique which is orders of magnitude away from what you were hoping for. And finally the original motivation for the 5'th amendment is not eliminated by tools like this. There are many laws on the books which lots of people are not in compliance with. Take something as minor as traffic tickets. "What was your drive yesterday, how many streets did you go above the speed limit on? What would those tickets total? Shall we retroactively ticket you for the day before yesterday as well?" When it comes to something like illegal drugs, well I'd wager that most of us either have violated those laws or could name someone else who has. The ability to intimidate virtually anyone you want with selective enforcement of existing laws is more than bad enough to justify the existence of the fifth in my books. And I think that most here and in the general public would agree. In the end it really doesn't matter whether you are threatening someone with trumped up charges or with a whole series of real charges. Either way you're handing the government a potent threat that can be used to intimidate whoever they want. If this technology works fairly well and becomes a substitute for our court system, as far as I'm concerned we'll have just taken a big step towards totalitarianism. Furthermore I have serious doubts about how well this technology can work. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #185,701 by GBert 12/1/04 11:18:46 AM Reply	Bravo! Very well said Have whatever values you have. That's what America is for. You don't need George Bush for that.

Welcome to IWETHEY!