No, I didn't forget about it. But having been around courtrooms, as I know YOU also have, I am definitely able to put it in its proper perspective. As YOU know, polygraphs--even the mention of a person's "results"--are VERBOTEN in the world of evidence. I am sure that you are as familiar with the rules of evidence as I am.
And, given your legal training, including that class they require even "high-powered" law students to take--criminal procedure--you know that the polygraph is, first and foremost, an interviewing TOOL. It, and its "results," are NOT acceptable evidence.
I'll go further and say that polygraph results prove virtually nothing. What is their use? Their usefulness comes about when we observe the reactions that human beings (especially the person being tested) have to being TOLD they are being tested, and TOLD their results.
Here is an example of just that. The following is an example of what you said about Probation and Parole Officers, and about getting their probation revoked.
I wanted to educate myself on this, and knew someone who could help me. My brother is a Probation and Parole Officer in our state, and has been for 30 years. I copy/pasted just your post on explaining to this board about the P&PO's role in this, and asked him if this was how it was done. He answered my email (which I will copy/paste), stating that it may be different in other states, but this is how it is done in our state.
Therefore, I suggest that in the future, you make a disclaimer that not everything you are stating is nation wide procedure, and may not have been used in Utah.
I also checked Utah law on it, and came up with quite alot on this..but not to make this as lengthy as it could be, I will not post that right now.
Below is what YOU said in your post
To: Sherlock
Police investigating Elizabeth Smart's disappearance arrested Ricci on June 14 for allegedly violating that parole by committing an April 4, 2001, burglary, possessing alcohol and failing to complete a treatment program.
Thanks so much for that quote! (Devil speaking)
Parole/probation officers, when they want to get someone's parole/probation revoked, will put in a written request to the judge who sentenced the guy on whatever offense it was he was on parole/probation for. The judge, on getting the request, will issue a warrant for the guy's arrest. When police arrest him, he will almost always be held w/o bond. Then the judge will hold a hearing to give the guy a chance to explain. There is no right to counsel at this type of hearing. After hearing what the guy has to say, the judge will either revoke probation/parole, making the guy have to go back and finish out the prison time he was originally given on the underlying offense, or will forgive the guy and reinstate him on probation/parole.
Often a parole/probation officer will see one of his people screwing up, but will at first call him in and warn him. I think that's what happened when Ricci first fell off the wagon. He was given a chance or two, and his sentencing judge was told nothing at that point.
But then when police heard Ricci confess to at least one felony committed while he was out on parole (burglary), the parole officer would have been told of that. At that point, he'd have given up on giving Ricci any more chances, and have issued the request to the judge to revoke parole.
116 posted on 9/27/02 12:52 AM Central by Devil_Anse
{end}
**********************************************************
My brother's respons to my email ...
{I must interject here, that my brother does not know where I got this quote of yours from, he does not even know I post on Free Republic, or what Free Republic is. I didn't mention who said the quote I sent him, or where it was from )...His reply says:
No, this is not correct, at least not in the state of XXX. It may be accurate for other states but in XX. the Dept. of Corrections has the revoking authority, not the judge. The P&P officer investigates the violation, has the power to issue an apprehension request, and the violator is placed in custody without the ability to post bond.
Within seven days the officer must determine if he is going to proceed with revocation and if he does the offender is given a written notice and he is entitled to an attorney. The Dept. of Corrections serves as magistrates for a preliminary and final revocation hearing (I was a preliminary hearing magistrate).
The violator can waive these hearings. If he waives or if revocation is upheld after hearings the offender is then ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence. If he is on what is called a withheld sentence he is returned to court and the judge sentences him.
If he is on a imposed and stayed sentence he automatically starts serving the sentence without going back before the judge. If he is a parole case he automatically goes back to prison to serve the balance of his sentence.
Yes, many times a P&P officer will warn their clients before iniating revocation and that, of course, is determined by the seriousness of the violation and whether other alternatives (like AODA treatment) is appropriate rather than revocation and jail or prison.
There you have a mini-revocation lesson. May I asked what this is for?
End of email.