Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, Free Speech, Politics, Science, Society

Chad Dixon Gets 8 Months For “Lie Detector Fraud”

by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger

department-of-justice-logo1This is an update to a story originally posted here by Charlton Stanley, “Polygraphers trigger fear response in Federal prosecutors.”

Chad Dixon, a 34 year old Marion, Indiana little league coach who ran the “PolygraphExpert.net” website teaching people how to defeat polygraph tests, was sentenced to eight months in jail for threatening national security by teaching government job applicants how to beat lie-detector tests. Teaching such techniques and discussing them is not per se illegal. It is an admitted gray area in 1st Amendment jurisprudence.  However, U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady found the evidence compelling enough that Dixon had crossed the line when he advised some clients, including two undercover officers, to conceal what he taught them while undergoing government polygraphs. This is in addition to the charges of obstruction and wire fraud Dixon plead guilty to last year.

Nina Ginsberg, Dixon’s attorney, accused prosecutors of trying to turn her client into a “poster child for its newly undertaken campaign” to stop people from using the polygraph disruption techniques. the prosecution had sought a two year sentence, but Judge O’Grady thought that eight months was sufficient. O’Grady said, “There’s nothing unlawful about maybe 95 percent of the business he conducted,” although he added that “a sentence of incarceration is absolutely necessary to deter others.”

As Charlton Stanley’s original column indicated, lie detectors are anything but a lie detector.  “[L]ie detector technology has no known statistical properties with regard to detecting deception of any kind. It has not been accepted as science in the scientific community. The only thing scientists seem to agree on is most of these machines measure stress reactions in humans, and to that extent, they can measure stress in people who feel stress—that’s it.”

Deterrent based on legitimate concerns or chilling of free speech in the name of protecting a test of dubious value?

What do you think?

Source: Seattle Times

~submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger

39 thoughts on “Chad Dixon Gets 8 Months For “Lie Detector Fraud””

  2. I am one of few victims this snake has bitten if it would have been poisonous the number of deaths would be in the hundreds if not more.

  3. Rayann,
    I am so sorry that happened to you. Hope you are able to someday get some sleep and good rest without feeling the need to look over your shoulder all the time.

    As a general rule, psychopaths can easily “beat” the machine because they do not feel anticipatory anxiety. Most of them have no difficulty lying, and show no measurable response even when you know they are lying. As I wrote on this blog last August 8, these machines are junk science. Oversold and overblown. Anyone who puts their faith in a “lie detector” for solving a case is not much of an investigator.

    http://www.questia.com/library/94380484/a-tremor-in-the-blood-uses-and-abuses-of-the-lie

  4. This man has done more than meets the eye. I was 13 when this man raped me and he got away with it by passing the lie detector test. I am 27 and still have to live in fear of him… I live day to day not knowing if he will come back but this time will he kill me??? I have three daughters and I pray everyday that they will never have to go through what I have. It’s sad that the system that was built to protect victims is now helping the criminals get away with it and are covering it up… Sad I am ashamed of our system…. Sincerely the woman that will never rest with both eyes closed….

  5. Through one door is certain death, the other leads to freedom. Each door is guarded by a sentry, one who always tells the truth and the other always lies. The prisoner must choose a door to pass through. What question should he ask either sentry?

  7. Darren – quaint reflection.

    Tony C;

    Let’s “flip flop” the question (I know, I can’t help myself)

    Is it impossible to say

    “I’m lying” – and you are telling the truth about the fact that you are lying;
    to then be telling a lie that is true?

    I’m just sayin……

    we’re “etch-a-sketchin”

  10. Laserhaas wrote

    If you say you are lying and you are telling the truth;
    what do you call that?
    ~+~
    Inverse Politician

  12. Oro,

    Paranoia certainly factors in to it, but also consider the flip side of intimidation. They are protecting a test that really isn’t effective at detecting untruth, only stress, yet they want people to be wary of the test. “We know what you’re thinking!” When scientifically speaking, they know no such thing. It’s the illusion of power backed by a real abuse of power is one way to see it.

  13. laserhass: If you say you are lying and you are telling the truth;
    what do you call that?

    Nice try at the paradox but it fails in this formulation, because if you do not know the truth, and you think the statement you are making is a lie, you can be telling the truth.

    So we call that “ignorance,” you do not know the truth and accidentally tell it while believing you are lying. If I say “Lets pretend aliens are in charge, even though we both know that is a lie,” and as it turns out aliens really are in charge, I have told the truth while claiming I am lying. There is no paradox, I am just mistaken, or ignorant of the truth.

  16. I like everything everyone has said…

    Just remember the thought police are going to be in your every way of life….

  19. “Deterrent based on legitimate concerns or chilling of free speech in the name of protecting a test of dubious value?”

    Paranoia?

Comments are closed.