8 months in prison for teaching how to beat a lie-detector test

This is disturbing:

http://reason.com/reasontv/2014/02/1...out-polygraphs

Techniques for beating a polygraph are public knowledge. So how can telling people about them be a crime?

There aren't enough details in the article, but it may have to do with whether or not Chad Dixon KNEW that the people he was instructing were planning on lying to law enforcement. That would make him an accessory.

So, it may be that if you teach people in general or in the abstract how to do it, there isn't a problem.

But if you give specific people that you know are planning on lying instructions on how to avail detection, then you are breaking the law.

The charge was obstruction, like putting up a warning around the corner from a speed trap.

Very disturbing, the NSA using a method not generally accepted in a court of law to keep its people in check. On a quarterly basis. I would want any true security officer to know why and how a polygraph can be beat, rendering the quarterly test a waste of time and money.

There aren't enough details in the article, but it may have to do with whether or not Chad Dixon KNEW that the people he was instructing were planning on lying to law enforcement. That would make him an accessory.

So, it may be that if you teach people in general or in the abstract how to do it, there isn't a problem.

But if you give specific people that you know are planning on lying instructions on how to avail detection, then you are breaking the law. Originally Posted by ExNYer

You can not knowingly help in committing a specific crime. Subtle but huge distinction.

A Tremor In The Blood, Lykken, David T.,

This is the book to get to understand 'lie detectors'
While it will not directly tell how to beat a test , one can figure it out
The author figures a lie detector is as reliable as a coil toss
EXCEPT in one instance --where one is accused of two crimes a real one and a fake one

You can not knowingly help in committing a specific crime. Subtle but huge distinction. Originally Posted by WTF

So if I drive you to go rob a bank after you told me, hey buddy, let's go rob a bank, then I haven't knowingly committed a crime?

So if I drive you to go rob a bank after you told me, hey buddy, let's go rob a bank, then I haven't knowingly committed a crime? Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

You have. You are an accomplice if you drive him to the bank so he can rob it. What don't you understand about that?

You have. You are an accomplice if you drive him to the bank so he can rob it. What don't you understand about that? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Hey genius, did you miss on the rhetorical question section of English at the junior college you attended? I even posted what WTF said - it was his stupid statement.
Either you were being deliberately provocative, or you are stupid. Which is it?

Hey genius, did you miss on the rhetorical question section of English at the junior college you attended? I even posted what WTF said - it was his stupid statement.
Either you were being deliberately provocative, or you are stupid. Which is it? Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Dipshit, YOU misread what WTF posted.

His statement wasn't stupid. The way you read it was.

He said, essentially, that a person is not permitted to knowingly (cannot knowingly) help in committing a specific crime.

It is obvious that you took that to mean that it is "not possible" for a person to knowingly help in committing a specific crime.

The article says obstruction anyway.

Dipshit, YOU misread what WTF posted.

His statement wasn't stupid. The way you read it was.

He said, essentially, that a person is not permitted to knowingly (cannot knowingly) help in committing a specific crime.

It is obvious that you took that to mean that it is "not possible" for a person to knowingly help in committing a specific crime. Originally Posted by ExNYer

If what you say is correct, then his communication skills suck, like he does,

I thought the results of a polygraph test were not admissible evidence since they are so unreliable....ie can be beaten or give misleading results.
This would make tampering with evidence a stretch and since lying during a polygraph examination is not a crime I do not see any criminal intent.

If I teach how to hot wire your car in case you ever need to, does that make me an accessory to car theft if you use tit in a life of crime?