I have a feeling this isn't about the lie detector itself as much as it may be more of an aiding and abetting a crime. That is.. he knew a crime was going to take place because of his training.
Then I have to wonder what the fuck is the govt using lie detectors for. They're worthless at the legal level.
Last edited by Collegeguy; 2013-09-08 at 07:32 PM.
The officers that set him up explicitly told him that they intended to use the training to lie on a federal job application test, which is how they justified the criminality.
although, in all honesty, i have trouble seeing the line between this, and defense attorneys (or even prosecutors in many cases).
They're completely and totally inadmissible in court.
And it supposedly matters because federal agencies ignore that little detail and continue using them.
They just aren't real big on actual science. See bullet lead analysis and the non-reality-based arson forensics they've pushed in the past.
Except that, unlike the drug tests, these tests in this case are based on complete and total BS.
Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mindMe on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW charactersOriginally Posted by Howard Tayler
Last edited by v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk; 2013-09-08 at 10:53 PM.
I don't get why it's so difficult to believe that abetting a criminal this directly can be treated as an offense.
They aren't perfect, but neither are several other kinds of evidence used in Courts. I agree that it is somewhat silly, but treating it as an offense is necessary, particularly when the sentiment behind it is as plain as day; clearly it's just meant to help potential criminals escape judgement of the law. Not considering that a felony itself leaves unanswered the critical question of when it is you draw the line where a form of evidence is deemed as "reliable" enough that teaching criminals how to work around that becomes an offense itself. That is a whole other can of worms that doesn't need to be opened. Just outlawing any way of aiding a criminal at all, no matter how seemingly trivial, is the less troublesome way to go about things.
Teaching someone that is done for one reason only.
Being charged for it was absolutely the right thing.
Intentionally aiding a criminal, intentionally aiding them to commit a crime with full knowledge of the consequences of their actions.
Since the Federal government loves lie detectors so much, maybe they can hook all these asshole politicians up to one on the televised debates.
People are missing the point. He got time for teaching people who would possibly hold a clearance how to cheat in order to gain said clearance.
I wouldn't doubt anybody who was ever in contact with the guy who currently works for the govt doesn't lose their clearances and/or jobs.
Lie detector results aren't admissible in court so that's a retarded conviction.