I mean, law enforcement occasionally uses polygraph tests in their investigations even though that type of "evidence" isn't admissible in court and, to be honest, what kind of scientific credibility does a piece of technology like a polygraph even have? They'll use whatever they can get their hands on even if it's questionable. Some police forces probably even have a psychic consultant or something. It scares me.
They'll use it especially if it's questionable, like handwriting analysis, because the goal is arrests not correct arrests. Trumped up, flimsy, circumstantial "evidence" is the best kind when you don't actually want to do your job.
Yeah, it goes along with the low standards that define probable cause. Policing, just like a lot of professions, is subject to bean counting when bean counting is not appropriate. Voters love to see statistics that flaunt "more arrests." Funny how people love numbers without really understanding what the numbers mean.
I mean, law enforcement occasionally uses polygraph tests in their investigations even though that type of "evidence" isn't admissible in court and, to be honest, what kind of scientific credibility does a piece of technology like a polygraph even have? They'll use whatever they can get their hands on even if it's questionable. Some police forces probably even have a psychic consultant or something. It scares me.
They'll use it especially if it's questionable, like handwriting analysis, because the goal is arrests not correct arrests. Trumped up, flimsy, circumstantial "evidence" is the best kind when you don't actually want to do your job.
Yeah, it goes along with the low standards that define probable cause. Policing, just like a lot of professions, is subject to bean counting when bean counting is not appropriate. Voters love to see statistics that flaunt "more arrests." Funny how people love numbers without really understanding what the numbers mean.