The Polygraph As A Truth DetectorWritten by William Trevino
The polygraph as a truth detector
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association believes that there is convincing evidence to suggest that use of polygraph is arbitrary, subjective, biased toward accusations of guilt and claims of very high validity are scientifically indefensible. However, even if one is not willing to be persuaded by evidence on these matters, one must admit, at very least, that there is no scientific opinion whatsoever concerning validity of polygraph testing. In fact, there is extremely wide divergence over validity of test.
In these circumstances, onus is clearly on proponents of polygraph test to establish a convincing scientific case for claims of high validity that are made by polygraph operators. In other words, burden of proof rests with lie detector industry to satisfy scientific community and legislators that there is convincing evidence to support claims of ninety percent or greater accuracy that are commonly made by polygraph operators. Without such agreement, it seems utterly irresponsible to allow use of such a device in situations where it may ultimately interfere with liberty of innocent citizens.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association urges Government of British Columbia to follow example of Ontario in banning mandatory use of polygraphs by employers in province. We would go further: since evidence we have presented throws considerable shadows of doubt on usefulness of polygraph test per se, we see no useful purpose for procedure as either screening procedure for police candidates, or in court system generally, both of which are uses allowed by Ontario, though there is no convincing evidence in support of test in any situation. Ontario's compendium of information, including Morand Report, in their 1983 amendment to their Employment Standards Act leads one to conclusions very similar to B.C. Civil Liberties Association's: polygraph test is a humbug of subjective, arbitrary and contradictory procedures that does not detect lies or guilt any more effectively, and in many cases not as well (because of procedural and machine bias), as interviews and cross examination that are already common tools of psychology, police work and courts. The compounded danger in instances of polygraphs lies in sanctioned role that untrained persons with crude devices play in harrying innocent persons in commercial and legal settings. To paraphrase an expert, it is idiocy of idiocies. We urge its removal as an avenue of arbitrary persecution.
Hodgepodge JusticeWritten by Terry Dashner
“Hodgepodge thoughts regarding Justice”
I think you will agree with me that Hitler and his Nazi party stand out as one of most repugnant memories in annals of history. The question I raise is this: Were nations that condemned Nazis at Nuremberg trials justified in rendering justice? Now before you question my sanity, please read following lines patiently. If positive law philosophy and macroevolution (theory that holds to idea that all varieties of life forms emanated from a single cell or “common ancestor.”) are highest law by which to bring condemnation upon another human being or sovereign nation, then all sovereign nations have right to do good or do evil, and no other sovereign nation can hold other accountable for its perceived crimes. Follow me. This gets clearer.
As social Darwinism and nationalism merged in Germany during early twentieth century, concept of fostering a genetically superior race called Volk (the people) was established. The idea of Volk was extended to various biological analogies, shaped by contemporary beliefs of heredity, and designed to protect Germany from ‘racial inferiority.’ The German’s were trying to perfect eugenics, science that investigates methods involving betterment of genetic composition of human race. (In this case Aryan race.) One of their goals was to eliminate ‘inferior’ races and offspring and preserve ‘better’ progeny. (This method is perfectly consistent with macroevolution and central principle, survival of fittest.) Nazi Germany figured if they could win war and purge world of Jews and other undesirables, they could rule world as a “revived Roman Empire” to last a thousand years.
Again I ask you: Can America, or any other country, charge German officials with crimes against humanity? Especially since Germany felt it had a national obligation to achieve genetic purity? The research being conducted at death camps was in accordance with Nazi law, and Nazi law defined what was right and just—in a word, what was legal. Dr. Geisler, in his book that he co-authored with Peter Bocchino entitled, Unshakable Foundations (Bethany House), makes a sobering and poignant comment that’s worth repeating here. He writes, “As long as naturalistic macroevolution and positive law are dominating scientific and legal viewpoints both in theory (education) and in practice (law), we run risk of returning to one of darkest eras in history of human race.” If we continue teaching our children that law of state is highest law in universe, and man is simply a product of natural selection, then we are doomed to repeat evils of past.