Sad Update on Abuser (page 2)

blondie

Mary, just one slight legal point, OJ was not convicted, sad that may be.

Blondie

The legal entity is Child Services. They take advisement from the Judge and Prosecutor, and then using their agency procedures, Child Services determines if a child needs to be removed and placed in another environment. So, in this case, Child Services was notified of his arrest, tiral, conviction, jail sentance, and release. At all times Child Services allowed him to retain custody of his grandson. While in jail, his wife (grandma) kept the child. The prosecutor told me that he and the judge notified Child Services each step of the process. But, under state law, Child Services calls all the shots and make the final decisions. Go figure.

Sassy

this is all so horrific.. I just do not understand..

SAHS

Sil's dad was arrested again after he failed several lie detector tests. In his state, a convicted child molester can be arrested and their parole revoked if they fail quarterly lie detector tests. Evidently, based on the lie detector results, it is suspected he molested his young grandson who lives with him.

Just a little side point: I thought that a lie detector test could not actually be used by itself as the sole evidence for a legal conviction. Does the law on this vary among different states?

I?ve heard that it is possible for some people to ?fool? a lie detector machine so that it doesn?t pick up evidence of lying. (There must be some mental ?trick? to that.) If it?s possible that a lie detector may fail to pick up actual lying, is it also possible that such a machine may give a false indication of lying when a person may actually not be lying due to extreme anxiety or some other factor? Has there been any scientific research into the validity of these machines one way or the other?

I?m certainly not in any way condoning or supporting any alleged wrongdoing in this or any other situation, but when I read the above I couldn?t help thinking, Is it really accurate and fair to rely solely on a machine that could be prone to error like anything else? I mean, it?s not exactly a superVHS video camera.

?SAHS

Amazing1914

Hi SAHS,

Just a little side point: I thought that a lie detector test could not actually be used by itself as the sole evidence for a legal conviction. Does the law on this vary among different states?

In most states, a lie detector test cannot be used against a criminal defendant. In some states, it can be used, depending on the judge and jurisdiction involved.

I?ve heard that it is possible for some people to ?fool? a lie detector machine so that it doesn?t pick up evidence of lying. (There must be some mental ?trick? to that.)

It is nearly impossible to fool a lie detector, as it measures too many human responses for a person to control. Some few people have been able to fool a lie detector if they are trained and practiced many times on a polygraph machine. The notion that we can fool it is mostly myth. The very few cases where it proved inaccurate, have led courts to not trust it entirely.

If it?s possible that a lie detector may fail to pick up actual lying, is it also possible that such a machine may give a false indication of lying when a person may actually not be lying due to extreme anxiety or some other factor?

No, this cannot happen. A person is first checked out several times on a polygraph to calibrate all of their nervousness and feelings of anxiety. Once this calibration is complete, then the polygraph can commence.

Has there been any scientific research into the validity of these machines one way or the other?

Yes. I used to have the links, but they are on my old PC. There is good science on polygraphs. However, there are many "junk" sites that are against lie detectors that are not good science.

A defense attorney once stated to me that the odds of a person being able to "fool" a lie detector are about one in a million. But, for the courts, a defense attorney will argue that it is one in a million too many. - Jim W.

Balsam

A man goes to prison for molestation of children. Then he is allowed custody of his grandson after he gets out? What the heck was the judge thinking. The Judge ought to be head responsible for doing this. That is terrible. Poor kid. The law is not protecting kids anymore than the JW are. I can't help but wonder that the Judge did not believe this man went to prison for something he really did. He must have felt the JW man was not guilty. Sick really sick.

blondie

Up above, Amazing explained that in Illinois it is Child Services that makes the decison, not the judge or the prosecutor.

Blondie

jgnat

I can anticipate how a social worker may decide to allow a child to remain. It is important to provide as much stability as possible for a child who has been through trauma. It may very well be that his grandma is the most stable element in this little boy's life. He may also have expressed his desire to stay with grandma. We also need to ask, did grandma show good judgement to allow grandpa back in to this boy's life?

AlanF

Unfortunately, Child Services workers are all over the map in competence. Likely, in this case, the luck of the draw was bad.

AlanF

Sad Update on Abuser

Share this