Arutz 7
Family court judge Assaf Zagury said Thursday that “in 99 percent of the polygraph tests to which I sent the two sides in requests for restraining orders, the woman turned out to be lying”.
Judge Zagury is the Deputy President for Family Matters in the Northern District Magistrates’ Court, which is based in Nazareth.
He spoke at a conference dedicated to false complaints within the family, which took place Thursday at the Carlton Hotel in Tel Aviv.
Zagury was replying to a question by Attorney Moran Samon, Head of the Committee for False Complaints in the Bar Association.
He said that there is real difficulty in assessing the truth of complaints regarding domestic abuse, because the deliberations tend to be very short in time and are based on “a balance of probabilities.”
The phenomenon of false complaints “creates an unprecedented workload on the system,” he added, “because it precludes the discussion of the other matters that need to be discussed.”
Also speaking at the conference, Judge Nahshon Fisher, Family Court Judge in the Rishon Letzion Family Court, argued that “not every complaint that is not true is necessarily a false complaint.”
“Sometimes,” he explained, “you find that you are dealing with a complaint that is not true and a different interpretation of events by one of the sides. A false complaint, in my view, is one in which besides the harmful statements, there is malicious intent.”[...]
Do the Frum organizations like Dovid Weinberger's Shalom Task Force and Anne Neuberger's Sister to Sister have a response to this. Do they have a vetting process as to who they choose to fight for, provide advice, money and lawyer fees for? Do they automatically accept claims of abuse, or do they ask the tough questions and ask for specifics? Who is in charge of their vetting process? What percentage of those who come to them do they find to be lying?
ReplyDeleteWhat other types of support do they offer the abused after the divorce process is over? It is important to note that these organizations are not meant to help people gain an upper hand in a divorce batlle through false claims. As such, I would hope that they provide real therapy and healing for those that have been abused long after the court battle is over, and that it doesn't end when the ink dries on the court order. I would like to know what percentage of their clients and patients continue getting help from them that is specifically geared towards abuse victims.
In mentioning Shalom Task Force, I am referring particularly to their legal division Sarah's Voice.http://www.shalomtaskforce.org/legal/
ReplyDeleteSo as a psychologist, your professional opinion is that polygraph results are accurate as a lie-detector?
ReplyDeleteOr do you agree with the APA?
http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx
On an individual basis, you definitely have a point. However, where many, many tests have produced a 99% lying result, even the greatest critics will agree that there was indeed lying in most cases.
ReplyDeleteas a psychologist and someone who deals with reality, these results - which have been supported by those working with divorcing couples - indicates that there is a serious problem of lying. While I would not rely on a lie detector for an individual case - they clearly indicate a significant concern that is only disregarded if you have your head buried in the sand. In the words of my statistics professor, A result is significant if you would be willing to put money on the conclusions. Any professional or rabbi dealing with divorce needs to work with the assumption that these results are accurate indicators of reality.
ReplyDeleteAnd would your statistics professor distinguish between 99 percent of women who asked for restraining orders, as in your headline, on the one hand, and 99 percent of women whom the judge decided there was cause to send them (and partner) for a polygraph, on the other?
ReplyDeleteIn other words, if the judge only had cause to send for polygraph testing 4 percent of suspicious cases, and 99 percent of that 4 percent the woman failed, would your statistics professor conclude that 99 percent of women lied in all domestic abuse allegations?
good point - the title was not the conclusion but a reason to read the article. The point that he would agree with is that the results indicate a major issue that needs further investigation and caution
ReplyDeleteBut if you are looking for inaccurate things to impel people to read the article, wouldn't this have worked better?
ReplyDelete"100 Foot Tall Mutant Lizard Destroys Midtown Manhattan?"
Meanwhile, Reverend Cotton Mather reported that 99% of the women he put to the drowning test for witchcraft indeed drowned. These results indicate a major issue that needs further investigation and caution. :)
I don't know what you are so agitated about. This is what headlines are about. they are to grab your attention and quickly indicate whether the topic is relevant to get the full picture. They are not lies but they often are truncated. Are you shocked about this?
ReplyDeleteWho says I am agitated?
ReplyDeleteBut who wrote the headline on your blog? And does it conform to a particular narrative you would like to put forth? And do you think that 99% of your readers are sophisticated enough to make this statistical distinction, assuming they bothered to read the article rather than the headline? Or would they indeed draw the (quite possibly erroneous) conclusion? For example, Honesty does not seem (based on my reading of his comments) to have made this distinction...
As a separate point, are you certain that when the judge said 99%, he was not speaking rhetorically, rather than scientifically as a result of a careful review of his records?
I say you are agitated.
ReplyDeleteYou are acting like I was trying to convince the world that an eishes ish can remarry without a get! The basic point of the article is simply that - contrary to the message that various groups are giving over - women often manufacturer false claims in a marriage dispute.
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/06/shalom-task-force-discusses-little.html
For example, Honesty does not seem (based on my reading of his comments) to have made this distinction...
ReplyDeletePlease explain yourself.
Now that you have read the above, and understand that there is something called selection bias, do you still think that even the greatest critics will agree? In the general case of abuse allegation?
ReplyDeleteAside from that, if a polygraph is really a fear (or other reaction) detector, then perhaps the particulars of a situation (of all these women sent for the test), with this particular judge, with e.g. an indication of being disbelieved after being beaten, with custody of the children riding on it, is it possible that that is what is causing the particular result, in a good many of the cases?
Many formerly credible tests are or were accepted in court. For instance, look at hair analysis, bite mark analysis, certain beliefs in arson science, in which thousands of people have been convicted falsely.
Your belittling and contempt is uncalled for. Are you incapable of having a civilized discussion?
ReplyDelete1) How do you know what percentage of cases were sent for polygraph tests?
2) You may have missed it, but both spouses were sent for the test. Only the woman turned out to have failed the test; not the man.
3) The main issue that there is with polygraph tests is that liars can pass it. It is improbable and rare that those speaking the truth fail it.
But more importantly, the same fear that exists for the woman is worse for the man. He has custody, alimony AND criminal charges riding on it. Why did the men pass it in 99% of the cases that they were sent for it?
------
Do you have any connection with Dr. Joy Silberg? Do you believe that when woman disparages a child's father, it rolls off the child's back; but if a man disparages the mother, then it is usually abusive?
Do you think that collecting data about asking for protection orders of only cases where, upon appeal, child custody was overturned is selection bias?
Sorry if you read belittling and contempt in my comment. I can't help this, any more than I can help Daniel Eidenson reading agitation.
ReplyDelete1) I don't, and neither do YOU. That was the point.
2) I didn't miss it. We don't know exactly what sparked the judge to send for this polygraph in these cases. And we don't know if, having suffered abuse (which was the woman in these cases), the doubt and worry about repercussions is what sparked the physical reaction. We don't know. But polygraph results do NOT necessarily mean lying, but rather a specific response.
3) That is what you claim. Can you back it up? The APA in the link I provided specified both. "The accuracy (i.e., validity) of polygraph testing has long been controversial. An underlying problem is theoretical: There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious. Also, there are few good studies that validate the ability of polygraph procedures to detect deception."
Connection with Dr. Joy Silberg?! What in the world?! This is so out of left field, almost as much as Daniel Eidenson's assertion comment that I was reacting as if he was being matir aishes ish without a get... Are you trying to construct a conspiracy theory, or something?
Do you have a connection with Hillary Clinton? What do you think about her handling of email?
Sorry if you read belittling and contempt in my comment. I can't help this, any more than I can help Daniel Eidenson reading agitation.
ReplyDeleteRight. Or you can choose to control your emotions.
To you, though, you're a victim and have a right to be agitated, to belittle others and to treat them with contempt. Good luck with that.
Let's get back to the basics.
A) Every honest critic will agree that the results show that there was lying in most of those 99% cases.
B) It is very possible that the sun won't come up tomorrow. "We don't know." This type of contrarian nonsense is not relevant to what we're dealing with. Since there's at least equal, if not greater, reason for the man to be as nervous as the woman, then the men should have also failed the polygraph. But they didn't.
You seem to be forgetting that this woman has already chosen to divorce and is only fighting over custody and distribution of assets. You would need a lot more than your brilliant theories about why the woman would generally be extra nervous for it to be considered a real possibility - in 99% of the cases. Some real data would be appropriate. (As I've made it clear, Mr. Waxman, we are not pointing at a specific case, but in general.)
C) Do you have any data to suggest that women who had been battered in the past, but are now divorcing, display extra nervousness? Do you have any data to suggest that a dangerous abuser will not feel nervous when they are being evaluated for credibility?
I wish you well. Good luck.
Sorry, I'm confused.
ReplyDeleteYou attribute this to me: "To you, though, you're a victim and have a right to be agitated, to belittle others and to treat them with contempt. Good luck with that."
Where have I said that I was agitated, let alone that I have a right to be agitated. The unfounded assertion of Daniel Eidensohn was that I was agitated.
I don't think I have belittled you or treated you with contempt. I do disagree with you and think you are making unfounded conclusions. The most I see in terms of contempt was my "are sophisticated enough" comment. I meant from the perspective of statistical sophistication.
A) "Honest critic", you haven't shown that. That is your belief. Of course, under the No True Scotsman fallacy, anyone who disagrees wouldn't be an honest critic.
B) "We don't know" is about the extrapolation from this case, where there was selection bias (since not everyone was sent to polygraph testing) to the general case. The headline in the article and the headline in this blogger's blog claimed that this was true in the general case, that 99% of women claiming abuse are lying. (For instance, in 30%, perhaps she had witnesses, or he admitted it, or based on demeanor, it was clear to the judge who was lying, and there was no need for a polygraph. Or they would both have to agree to the polygraph and the husband did not agree.) That is not "contrarian nonsense".
you:
"You seem to be forgetting that this woman has already chosen to divorce and is only fighting over custody and distribution of assets."
me, earlier:
"with custody of the children riding on it"
I forgot?
C) "Do you have any data to suggest that women who had been battered in the past, but are now divorcing, display extra nervousness?"
No. But then, that is not an accurate summary of what I said. However, even if it were, this is a possible explanation of the physical phenomenon. Given that we are dealing with poor data (one judge, using subjectivity to send to polygraph, with selection bias, and reporting his non-scientific recollection) and given that the APA says that lying is not the only thing which will cause results one way or the other, this is something which can be investigated. Certainly before jumping to a conclusion that (from the most restrictive to the least, where it seems that some of these conclusions have been drawn):
a) 99% of all women claiming abuse are lying
b) 99% of all women claiming abuse are lying in custody cases
c) 99% of all women claiming abuse in Israel are lying in custody cases