{"id":3065,"date":"2001-07-09T16:30:52","date_gmt":"2001-07-09T21:30:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/?p=3065"},"modified":"2021-02-19T16:43:03","modified_gmt":"2021-02-19T21:43:03","slug":"county-uses-lie-detectors-to-supervise-sex-offenders","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/2001\/07\/09\/county-uses-lie-detectors-to-supervise-sex-offenders\/","title":{"rendered":"&#8220;County Uses Lie Detectors to Supervise Sex Offenders&#8221;"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"entry\">\n\n\n<p><em>North County Times<\/em> staff writer Scott Marshall <a href=\"https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20020110120841\/http:\/\/www.nctimes.com\/news\/2001\/20010709\/11111.html\">reports<\/a> in a lengthy article on the use of polygraph &#8220;testing&#8221; to supervise sex offenders on probation in San Diego County, California. Be sure to see <a href=\"https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20020110120841\/http:\/\/www.nctimes.com\/news\/2001\/20010709\/11111.html\">the full article<\/a>. Excerpt:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>VISTA &#8212;- San Diego County probation officers are using lie-detector tests to help them supervise the roughly 600 sex offenders on probation countywide, a probation department official said.<\/p><p>Although state law prohibits the use of polygraph test results in court, probation officers can use the statements sex offenders make during interviews before and after the test is administered.<\/p><p>Those statements can be used to increase the supervision of the offenders, alter the counseling they receive or rearrest them for probation violations, said Susan Storm, a supervising probation officer in San Diego.<\/p><p>&#8220;It can help us monitor them when we can&#8217;t watch them 24 hours a day,&#8221; Storm said. &#8220;Bottom line is to provide safer communities.&#8221;<\/p><p>However, criminal defense attorneys decry the practice as a violation of the rights of those on probation and a waste of money.<\/p><p>&#8220;My argument is it&#8217;s a waste of time and money because polygraph results, as a matter of law, are inadmissible in court for any reason because results are unreliable,&#8221; said Deputy Public Defender Jack Campbell, who works in the public defender&#8217;s North County office in Vista. &#8220;Once the defendant knows the result is meaningless, they can lie at will.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>Once a sex offender on probation discovers that polygraphy is a fraud and learns how to beat the polygraph (see Chapters 3 &amp; 4 of <em><a href=\"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/pubs.shtml\">The Lie Behind the Lie Detector<\/a><\/em> to find out how), he or she can also lie at will. <strong>The use of pseudoscientific polygraph &#8220;tests&#8221; to supervise sex offenders is bad public policy.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>North County Times staff writer Scott Marshall reports in a lengthy article on the use of polygraph &#8220;testing&#8221; to supervise sex offenders on probation in San Diego County, California. Be sure to see the full article. Excerpt: VISTA &#8212;- San Diego County probation officers are using lie-detector tests to help them supervise the roughly 600 &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[339,157,344],"class_list":{"0":"post-3065","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-polygraph","7":"tag-california","8":"tag-pcsot","9":"tag-san-diego","10":"anons"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3065","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3065"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3065\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3066,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3065\/revisions\/3066"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3065"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3065"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3065"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}