It is my opinion that much of modern LEO's abilities to solve crimes are based on maintaining a facade of authority built up by the common perception of their methods. Specifically I mean the methods of analysis like hand-writing analysis, polygraphs, and even more "scientific" methods like finger-prints or DNA evidence. These methods of investigation are often portrayed in popular media as 100% effective in providing proof, however their real rates of effectiveness are quite a bit lower.
Much of these techniques are not as effective as claimed or perceived, but are used as a tool to bring pressure to bear on criminals to cause them to implicate themselves indirectly or confess completely to their crimes.
Much crime is solved merely by rounding up the "likely suspects" and tricking them into thinking that the case is already solved and the criminal just has a chance to admit and gain some sort of ameliorative to their sentence.
Only slightly removed from your point - FBI profilers are completely bogus, they employ the same techniques as fortune tellers.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/11/12/071112fa_fact_...
http://wordsofsocraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2007/11/fbi-crimin...
Many "fortune tellers" often admit, when directly asked, that what they do is little more than basic psychology and counseling. Being able to "cold read" what someone is concerned about - and know the perfect "Barnum Statements"[3] to drop early on to get someone to reveal further key details - is something all psychologists tend to do, to various degrees.
Regarding the FBI and their "profilers"... isn't being able to read people very fast pretty much the very definition of the job? You don't wast time "profiling" someone if you have a mountain of obvious evidence you can use directly. You profile when there isn't sufficient evidence, and we need someone to make a guess on which of the various poor-quality leads should be investigated.
I would hope the FBI hires at least _some_ people with that kind of talent, and comparisons to psychics is likely a good thing, for once.
...
That said, this one decent idea by the FBI doesn't do much to offset all those unamerican "plea bargain" games, "asset forfeiture" thefts without a conviction, and countless other abuses of their power we've seen over the last few decades.
[1]: http://www.salon.com/2012/09/23/fingerprints_arent_proof/
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_Paradox (to name one example of many)
No. FBI profilers don't even interact with suspects - they examine crime scene details and then make up a profile of the perpetrator that other agents and police then try to use as a lead.
In the end, though, they are similar to the "psychics" and confidence men; they need to quickly discover some key insights into a person's personality from (often VERY) limited data.
Also note: the very best cold-reading grifters/con-men don't have to interact with the suspect ("mark") either, sy least initially. It's part of how the mark is selected in the first place.
It should be noted especially loudly that the plea bargain is one of the most widely used (and most successful) technique of coercing an alleged criminal to implicate themselves, and that over 95% of federal court cases end as a result of a plea bargain.
The gamification of justice, where the only score that matters is convictions.
And a hell of a lot of force, backed by weapons and corrupt officials willing to "make an example" out of anyone who stands against their false authority.
Iwas in divorce court with my ex. I was required to pay her attorney fees, as such - I could not afford my own attorney.
As I was talking to the judge, her attorney was balking, sniffling and laughing at the things I was saying.
I stopped, turned to her and said "Excuse me, you're not being very professional"
She physically recoiled, and said "what!"
The judge said "I am sorry, what did he say"
The attorney said "I don't know - he mumbled and threatened me under his breath!"
THe bailiff began to scream at me and get in my face threatening to take me to jail.
I turned back to the judge and said "No I did not! I told her she was being unprofessional for making snide comments and sounds while I was discussing my case with you. There is audio recording of everything in this room. Replay the recording."
The judge dismissed the whole event, as she knew it were shenanigans on the part of the lawyer.
The bailiff continued to glare at me.
I gave the law firm a poor review on Yelp, Sagaria Law in San Jose, ca. Yelp kept removing it as Sagaria law kept contacting them about the reviews.
I will never respect or trust a lawyer again. This is endemic in our society.
The problem is that those attorneys are typically reserved for the rich, so most people don't interact with them, with the exception of some truly excellent public defenders and prosecutors.
With regard to your experience, I can't imagine an attorney not respecting the decorum of a court room like that. If I were the judge, I would have issued a warning and held her in contempt if it continued.
Further, if I found out that an attorney made a false allegation of a threat in my court room, I would report them for an ethics violation for lack of candor to the tribunal instantly. There is no room for that type of nonsense in a court of law.
I'm sorry about your experience. That attorney, who does not deserve the title, is both a poor lawyer and a terrible excuse for a human being.
In general, they are not reserved for anyone.
They just get tired of clients that won't pay, usually, after they told the client "it will cost 30k to do what you want, and you will lose anyway"
So they ask for larger and larger retainers, etc.
If you have had the fortune of having a lawyer do you well, good for you. I have never once experienced this. I have many examples to draw from.
EDIT: well well well, you're actually a lawyer. No wonder your bias.
Many examples:
* Didn't read my filings prior to court
* Forgot our conversations, and misrepresented my statements
* charged thousands, never showed up in court
* threatening me
* accusing me of threatening them (example cited)
* charging many thousands of dollars for retainer, while never doing any hours of work aside from a 30-minute phone call
* charging me telling me they could achieve a certain outcome, then telling me that there was nothing they could do and it was out of their control.
Yeah - fuck that.
Sure, there are bad lawyers like there are bad examples of anything else you care to name. It sucks that you've had a bad time of it, divorce court can't be fun.
But the fact that every interaction you've had seems negative - with your own lawyers, opposing lawyers, judges and even bailiffs (who are essentially non-legal admin/security staff) reveals a pattern. Eventually you have to ask: Is the whole world crazy, or just me?
Disclosure: I am a lawyer. I've had very difficult clients in the past. I generally get along well with clients, opposing counsel and even the opposing clients (to the extent we interact).
Most bar associations operate a referral service that weeds out lawyers with bad histories. You pay the bar ~$100 and they give you the contact info for the next lawyer in the queue who practices in the field you need.
At least this way you can be sure of getting a lawyer who does not have a history of screwing over any clients badly enough to get a complaint filed rather than a lawyer who did not screw over the one client who happens to be your friend.
That is good advice though ^_^
On what basis are you suggesting that one or two anecdotes don't allow me to completely profile an entire population of millions (in the case of gender Billions) of people?
In this case, the wife's lawyer appeared to believe that she was in a cultural milieu where it was acceptable practice, not only to jeer and snort on the sidelines, but to lie to the judge about what the OP said.
Further if the judge was ignoring you then file a complaint with chief judge.
Chances are nothing will come from a single complaint, but if a pattern emerges sanctions or even disbarment can be the result. I guarantee it will be more effective than a Yelp Review
Is there hard data on the failure rate of fingerprint evidence? That's quite interesting.
Brandon Mayfield is one example of a high-level failure in such analysis. He was implicated in the Madrid bombings by a finger-print and thus faced serious international terrorism charges despite being completely innocent.
Here's an article that touches on some of the issues, and also mentions some of Brandon Mayfield's experience:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-4069140.html
A finger-print analyst in the linked article claims 98% efficacy, though there is no data to back up that number. With no standards and no apparent statistics to back up their successes and failures.
For some information see:
National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Institute of Justice, February 2012 report: "Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach" (http://nij.gov/pubs-sum/latent-print-human-factors.htm)
In general there is a move towards probabilistic assessment of the strength of evidence (likelihood ratios), which offers a logically correct way of approaching problems in the forensic evaluation of evidence.
'No studies have proved definitively that fingerprints are unique. Likewise, it is unclear if prints change over time or vary depending on the amount of pressure applied. Statistical models and pattern-recognition software could go a long way toward answering these questions. Additionally, research is needed to expose error rates. The ACE-V method depends on two or more examiners reaching the same subjective conclusion, but doesn't require them to reach it the same way. In one recent experiment, veteran examiners looking twice at the same print came to different conclusions each time. "
"Do they work?" is one question.
But if you apply for a job at any of the intelligence agencies (NSA, CIA, etc.), you'll have to pass this test. So be prepared.
With proper sensors, a skilled technician, and good data analysis it's pretty accurate for specific questions (e.g. did you beat your wife), but terrible for general queries (e.g. do you have any desire to take any action which would cause damage to the United States, her government, or her interests.)
Soviet agents routinely beat the polygraph during the Cold War (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldrich_Ames, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Klingberg)
The usefulness of the polygraph for clearance purposes relies mainly upon the fact that people believe it works. Over 90% of information used to deny clearances is derived from voluntary admissions during the polygraph.
The truth is that Snowden used one of these services, and so now the government is shutting them all down. The particular company that investigated him for his clearance in Pennsylvania, which employs about 1,500 people, is also facing likely shutdown and serious charges.
Maybe, maybe, functional MRIs will give us real lie detectors, but until then it's really just a way to scare people while they're questioned by a skilled interrogator.
That said, definitely wouldn't recommend trying to lie. A good investigator is a pretty damn good lie detector all by him or herself.
Also, can we finally agree that wire-fraud, mail-fraud, and obstruction of justice are ridiculously overly broad statutes that basically make federal criminal jurisdiction universal?
Dangerous for people taking the test or administering the test? Your comment seems ambivalent about the efficacy of tests.
>With proper sensors, a skilled technician, and good data analysis it's pretty accurate for specific questions... but terrible for general queries...
But is it accurate when used on people that have extensive training about how to beat the test?
>The usefulness of the polygraph for clearance purposes relies mainly upon the fact that people believe it works.
So why would telling people that it doesn't work be dangerous if it is "pretty accurate for specific questions?"
>That said, definitely wouldn't recommend trying to lie. A good investigator is a pretty damn good lie detector all by him or herself.
Good investigators have other skills use other things such as body language, speech patterns (e.g sudden shifts in tense when describing events), and facial micro-expressions (using systems such as FACS). So a good investigator wouldn't need a polygraph test.
Dangerous to the organizations that rely upon the test, in that lack of the belief in the efficacy of polygraphs decreases their usefulness as a screening tool.
>But is it accurate when used on people that have extensive training about how to beat the test?
No, its not particularly useful for any query if one has specific training in how to control one's physiological responses. The Soviets used general coaching, and I believe these modern firms are using biofeedback.
>So why would telling people that it doesn't work be dangerous if it is "pretty accurate for specific questions?"
The polygraph measures physiological indicators such as skin conductivity, heart rate, respiration, and muscle tension that are metrics of stress, stress being considered a proxy for deception.
The greatest effect of the polygraph coaching is that it reduces the subject's belief in the efficacy of the test, thereby reducing the stress response during the testing, which in turn makes untruthful responses appear truthful.
>Good investigators have other skills use other things such as body language, speech patterns (e.g sudden shifts in tense when describing events), and facial micro-expressions (using systems such as FACS). So a good investigator wouldn't need a polygraph test.
All of those are useful techniques, as is voice stress analysis which is supplanting polygraph in corporate security, but all can be fooled.
The biggest added advantage of all "objective" deception tests is that they increase stress on the subject, causing more indications of deception to leak through the facade. When people believe the tests aren't very effective, their efficacy decreases.
The future is in functional MRI technology. Memory and fabrication are two very different mental tasks, and I would imagine the difference should be detectable with current technology, although I'm certainly no expert.
The two firms I've seen in the space are Cephos and No Lie MRI, which are claiming ~97% accuracy (a useless number I realize, but the best I can find from their public information.)
Funny that you would use that gender-specific example. As if women didn't beat their husbands/boyfriends.
A fairly large statistical portion of domestic violence is female to male, and the stereotype of the wife-beater has certainly led to a lot of false prosecutions against men (falsely accused of being the aggressor) and situations that police ignored until a female assailant escalated to deadly force.
I used it because it's the standard placeholder of an unwitnessed violent crime in law enforcement discussions.
Perpetuating harmful stereotypes is not cool in any case. Sincere apologies. I lieu of editing, since the time's elapsed, have some karma :)
The line from the movie Blow comes to mind:
Danbury wasn't a prison. It was a crime school. I went in with a Bachelor of Marijuana. Came out with a Doctorate of Cocaine.
IMO, a better strategy would be to prosecute everyone, including and preferably starting with those whose techniques are _not_ effective.
Following that line of logic, if we believe the government to be clever, then we can't draw conclusions as to the efficacy of his techniques, but if we believe the government to be naive or reactionary, then we should conclude that his techniques work.
Either way, the real method will find its way into the public domain sooner or later, and the only question is how easily accessible it'll be to the average joe.
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/C..S..Lewis.Quote.E...
Less so after this prosecution. It would be pretty stupid for the government to send undercover agents after him if his techniques didn't work. He'd be helping the government if he taught ineffective techniques to people to who wanted to lie to it. So either the government is very stupid (a real possibility, I admit) or his techniques work.