DIorNDI writes:
Have your opinion about polygraph, and do what is right to change it, but PLEASE stop teaching rapists how to beat it in order to prove it is inaccurate!  For our children's sakes

What an idiot. Perhaps somebody should make an anonymous phone call to the DCSS and make a few false allegations.

Then we can all sit on the side and say, "...If a person claims to have been falsely accused of lying, who is to say that if they lied ..."

Gee. You know I'm glad that lie detector's don't work. That means that the police state cannot do mind reading on me. But of course some morons would prefer that the state have the power to read peoples minds.

Hope I don't meet this moron in real life.....I would be tempted to make that false allegation just to teach the retard a lesson.

Warble

DIorNDI wrote on Jan 18^th, 2004 at 2:23am:

Another Guest

I believe I labeled you in an "Off Topic" post.

If you think the posts of Anonymous are reasonable, then maybe you belong in federal LE. Federal employees are not famous for their great intellect. 

When it comes to intelligence, you can't cary my jocky strap.

I am sure you will let us know when you get your DI from your federal polygrapher.

With that, I will end this nonsence on my end.

hey guest, give it up.  as far as these last few posts go, all i can see is anonymous making reasonable arguments with twoblock just responding with a bunch of unsupported, half-assed rebuttals.

your kind of post is what separates the intelligent posters from the ones that post because no one listens in the world outside of the old 'puter.  you're pathetic, man.

Hey Twoblock, take it easy on Anonymous.  I think his posts are very entertaining, (he really gets worked up and gets his panties in a wad over every little thing), and informative, (he draws on his vast experience of failing his polygraph tests).  He has an opinion on everything and doesn't allow his total lack of knowlege to stop him from giving it.

Anonymous

If you are not a politician, you have missed your calling. You do have a nack of rambling and twisting the subject matter. For example, your statement " I was AGREEING with you on the fact that blacklisting does not occur". Hell bud, I was saying and still say that it DOES occur.

If you have seen my past posts, you know that I can't give legal advice (or is that what you are trying to get me to do) because I am not a lawyer except for myself. I file pro se and win. The info you are asking of me can be found in any law library if one cares to research it.

As far the Mark Zaid suit - actions in the federal court system, nearly always, takes years. Just because YOU haven't heard any news lately doesn't mean that it is not still in progress. Mine didn't take that long because I won in the lower court and left little room for a viable appeal.

You are correct in one way though. Your post was not directed to me and I shouldn't have responded. All I was trying to say is that if (one's) integrity has been slandered, i.e. by being branded a liar by a polygrapher, (one) DOES have recourse if (one) chooses to do something about it.

BTW, it costs $150 bucks to file an action in federal court.

Twoblock,

I don't understand why you are questioning my ability to comprehend.  Did you or did you not begin your post with 'Anonymous,'?  At least to me, that indicates that your post is directed at me.

Secondly, rather than quickly posting personal insults ("your ability to comprehend is lacking," "not having enough guts to defend your integrity," etc.) why not actually contribute something to the debate?  In response to my initial post, you simply indicate that some of us have recourse in the form of a lawsuit requiring the federal government to prove that I lied.  My response to your suggestion involved several questions regarding that particular means of recourse.  All of which you chose not to answer.  Reread my post.

However, it seems as though you are not fully reading my posts or it is YOUR ability to comprehend that is lacking.  You evade every question or point raised in my posts and move to petty statements seemingly meant to put me in my place.  "You need to spend as much time studying federal law as I have before you call my statements bogus."  Give me a break.  You don't like that I called your statements bogus, fine.  But don't deliver lines meant to place yourself as an authority on ANY topic.  You don't know who I am, what I've studied or what I do.   

In any event, I don't think I mentioned anything about becoming a cop, did I?  I simply stated I have had success with other LE avenues.  Now, if you had truly been able to comprehend that statement, you would actually find that I was AGREEING with you on the fact that blacklisting does not occur and that one is not ALWAYS precluded from employment after a negative polygraph exam.

The funny thing is, my initial post wasn't even directed at you twoblock.  While I'm certainly up to debating a topic such as the polygraph, I'm not going to continue to post when your replies consist only of quick "you can do this or that statements" mixed in with jabs aimed at "all the rest that complains [sic] on these boards."

Have at it, twoblock - the last word is yours.  You are clearly quite confident of yourself and of your knowledge of the topic at hand.  If a federal lawsuit is viable recourse for one falsely accused of being deceptive, enlighten us.  What can one expect expense wise when choosing this method of recourse?  How long can one expect to get results?  And what will those results be?  As I already said, I've yet to hear any recent news on the suit filed by Mark Zaid.  I still fail to see how you justify this route as viable.

Once again - the last word is yours.

Anonumous

Reread the third paragraph of your response to DIorNDI. You specifically asked "what recourse,etc. etc".
 
I didn't single you out in the "roll over statement". I lumped you in with all the rest that complains on these boards about telling the truth and being called a liar by a polygrapher and not having the guts to defend your integrity.

You need to spend as much time studying federal law as I have before you call my statements bogus.

Your ability to comprehend seems to be lacking. I make reference to you personally only in the first sentence. The second sentence includes all the other posters that have claimed that a failed poly for a federal agency finds its' way to the other agencies. 

In conclusion, I don't give a damn whether you become a cop or not.

Twoblock,

I don't think you see the point of my post.  DIorNDI had tried to make a comparison between polygraphy and the practice of medicine.  Your suggestion that a victim of false positive has recourse is invalid in this particular discussion.

If "'ol' Herman Jones" as DIorNDI referred to gets the wrong operation, there will be quite a few medical malpractice lawyers willing to take his case on a contigency fee basis.  Why is that?  If "ol' Herman Jones" comes out of the operating room with the wrong leg missing, that's pretty easy to prove.  Is that always the case?  Of course not.  But we're dealing with many variables in a medical malpractice case (nature of procedure, doctor's history, etc.) and in MANY cases if the wrong procedure is performed that will be proven.

The "recourse" that you refer to for polygraph victims is bogus.  How many lawyers are you aware of that will file a civil suit against the federal government on a contingency fee basis?  Do you really think many people have the money available to them for the attorney fees involved in a suit like that?  Further, take a look at the forum on this site that discusses the "current" civil suit again the federal government filed by Mark Zaid on behalf of a dozen or so victims.  When's the last time anyone heard any good news about that suit?  Do you REALLY think its going to get anywhere?  Perhaps in my previous post I should have stated that we do not have VIABLE recourse.

Regarding blacklisting, I don't think I referred to that in any way.  I never mentioned a failed result being "broadcast to all other LE agencies."  I simply said that "many are then, as a result, precluded from employment by other agencies."  Big difference - the statement you claim I made is false, the statement I actually made is true.  While a polygraph failure may not be "broadcast" to other LE agencies, you should be aware that in most application processes for federal LE agencies, especially those that use the polygraph for pre-employment screening, an applicant is at some point required to indicate if he or she has been denied employment by the federal government.  His or her response would have to be 'yes.'  This can often be an automatic disqualifier.  Even assuming the applicant is able to reach the polygraph phase for a particular agency, the polygrapher will ALWAYS ask if he or she has submitted to a polygraph examination before.  If the answer is 'yes,' the examiner will ALWAYS want to know the results.  Would indicating a failure stop the exam right there?  Not always.  But in some cases, yes.  I believe there are several personal statements available on this site that prove this.  The disqualification comes from the applicant's own admission rather than a "broadcast" from another agency.  I'm not aware of any laws in place to protect an applicant from that.  If an agency wishes to disqualify someone they will.

Finally, in reference to "rolling over and playing dead," I don't think I mentioned anything to imply that I have chosen to do that.  After all, I do speak out on this board.  I do so anonymously, but so do most people here, even those that register with a screen name.  I have also successfully persued other avenues for LE positions - many agencies choose to not use a polygraph exam during the application process.  So, please do not assume that my post means that I spend my days pouting over a failed polygraph because that isn't the case.

Anonymous

You DO have recourse. (Stuck record again) File a federal suit and make them prove that you lied. As far as a failed poly being broadcast to all other LE agencies preventing one from getting employed as a LEO -- THAT IS BLACKLISTING. There are laws against this practice.

You people just keep on rolling over and playing dead and the polygraphers are just going to keep on burying you.

DIorNDI,

You seem to be on the verge of suggesting similarities between clinical medicine and polygraphy in the sense that both practices involve aspects of art.  What usually gets lost in such assertions and would become more apparent in any serious analysis of  the two (continuing with such an analogy) is that medicine would be revealed to be more akin to an Old Master hanging in the west wing of the National Art Gallery with polygraphy having parallels with the $1.98 bull fighter on velvet in your local grocery store.  Get real, bozo 

DIorNDI,

I told the truth and DIDN'T pass my polygraph.  So, while the fact that you told the truth and did pass does not indicate that it's just you, the fact that I along with many others told the truth and didn't pass indicates that it's also not "just me."

I see one major flaw in your analogy of polygraph examiners/polygraphy to medical doctors/the practice of medicine:  in each of your examples, you fail to mention one thing.  These victims (or their families) of malpractice all have some type of recourse available to them.  Whether it be corrective surgery without charge to the more serious cases involving civil litigation, these people may suffer greatly and experience long-term trauma but in the end they have RECOURSE.

Indicate to us all what recourse a truly "honest" person found deceptive through a polygraph "test" has.  The opportunity to vehemently deny the implied or explicit accusations of deception?  And then what?  In the case of pre-employment screening, nothing.  Some are lucky enough to get a retest.  Many are not.  Many are then, as a result, precluded from employment by other agencies.  And again, what chance do they have to provide a reasonable defense?   

Those of "us" in the "victim by false positive" group have in many cases experienced significant trauma by committing to a process that one truly believes will result in the acheivement of a long sought after goal only to be denied this acheivement based on the opinion of one examiner operating a machine designed around an undeniably flawed, pseudoscientific theory that deception can ACCURATELY be detected by monitoring physiological response.  I imagine you are thinking at this point something similar to "mellodramatic BS, you don't get the job, so what?"  I invite you to ATTEMPT to imagine yourself being falsely accused of deception and then denied not only employment but the fulfillment of a goal and honestly admit that you would not be feeling the same way as many others do.  The comparison of losing life or limb to being denied employment does seem somewhat drastic.  But remember, you are the one who drew the initial comparison.

Your analogy fails relative to what this site strives to accomplish.  The polygraph exam, when used as a pre-employment screening tool, is an unfair, invalid and dangerous method used strictly to "sift" through otherwise qualified candidates in an effort to save the money that would have been used in a costly background investigation.  In fact, you are quite mistaken that a failed polygraph result is not used as a sole disqualifier.  Take the FBI, for example. Upon the submission and approval of the polygrapher's opinion that a candidate "failed" the polygraph exam, that candidate is issued a letter rescinding the conditional employment offer within ten days.  That candidate is typically not contacted before this occurs for an explanation and a background investigation DOES NOT occur.  So, you are in fact completely wrong in that the polygraph does not represent a disqualifer in itself.

Further, and again using the FBI as an example, the polygraph was not reinstated for pre-employment screening purposes until 1994.  Coincidentally, prior to 1994 the FBI also held a "zero-tolerance" drug policy that resulted in immediate disqualification should an indication that a candidate had used drugs be discovered during a background investigation. That's right, background investigation.  You ask, how does any given agency determine if what an applicant says is true? Your answer is through an in-depth background investigation.  It seems that it worked before, doesn't it?  Equally coincidental, upon adopting the polygraph as a phase of the applicant process, the FBI also eliminated its "zero-tolerance" drug policy with the realization that it is an unrealistic expectation.  And yes, FBI representatives have stated that as being the reason for the new policy: http://www.teenliberty.org/FBI.htm

The debates regarding lying vs. telling the truth, using or not using countermeasures, etc. are all secondary to the fact that pre-employment polygraph examinations should be abolished.  The "acceptable collateral damage" will continue to speak out.

George, yes I do!  You propose as part of poly-bashing that since examiners only receive cracker-jack-box training, that it is not science.  Well, I just look at the medical community with the same principle:  with 8+years of school and countless hours of hands-on training at the finest Universities, MILLIONS of dollars in equipment, dozens of "support staff" and still ol' Herman Jones gets the wrong operation!!!  Or, pieces are left inside, parts removed that were not broken, and how about that girl in North Carolina at what, DUKE, that got organs that wouldn't even work inside her?  She lived long enough to tell her family goodbye.  How is that for an "accuracy" rate?  Now that is science.  If all their equipment is infallible and they are the best of the best of the best, then why is Malpractice Insurance even in existence?  Aren't they supposed to be 100% accurate?  One person getting denied a job vs. one person losing their life?  We should have a web site dedicated to forcing doctors to quit killing people with incompetence.  So if you ask if Polygraph is science, like doctoring? I sure hope not.  If a polygrapher gets a deceptive reading and obtains an admission, you guys will chalk that up to "intimidation" and interrogation, not to polygraph.  If a person claims to have been falsely accused of lying, who is to say that if they lied on the poly, that they are not lying when they say they told the truth?  Let's pretend that your 3+ year crusade has succeeded and polygraph has gone away.  How do we determine if what an applicant says is true?  Or do we just expect that everyone is telling the truth?  If polygraph prevents one worm from getting a job where thousands of lives are at stake, it is worth one "self proclaimed" innocent person from being denied employment.  And I was under the impression that most departments do not deny employment solely based on failed polygraph.  It does give the BI a good place to start, though.  I am sure others have been denied, but I figure in most cases, it is not the only basis.  I do like the blacklist conspiracy theory, where you fail one poly and can NEVER get a job anywhere else in the world.  Of course, I passed mine, so I have a biased opinion that telling the truth is the way to go.  Must be just me!

DIorNDI,

You liken polygraphic lie detection to a medical diagnostic test. Consider then, that which Dr. Alan P. Zelicoff, M.D., recently told the Albuquerque Tribune: "If we had medical tests that had the same failure rate as a polygraph, then physicians that use those tests would be convicted of malpractice."

Ok, I have now stopped laughing  long enough to type - men's issues activist?  But that is another website altogether.  Regarding Okieboy...man I sure hope your probation is over and you and your wonderful  lawyer file the suit.  If I read your post correctly, your lawyer assisted you in not only breaking your probation conditions, but knew you were using countermeasures to defeat the polygraph?  Can he file a lawsuit and testify on your behalf given the ethical violations he has committed?  So much for an oath when there is money to be made.  Watched you drink a beer and stay out one minute past curfew just so he can cash in on your future lawsuit.  Maybe you could post his name so others on the site can utilize his services.  Seems right in line with the theme of this site - whatever it takes, no matter how unethical, to get what I want.  And you are right, the law that states that it is illegal to have sex with a 15 year old is merely a suggestion.  Hell, since she was going to be 16 (assuming 16 is legal in your state) in a few days, it is no big deal.  And he never reoffended, that is good.  Too drunk and on coke to remember and you have a problem with the polygraph?  Seems that there should be other issues you should concern yourself with.  And passing a polygraph by using CM's does not invalidate the test.  Assuming you wanted to prove a doctor is incompetent, and you went in and had taken drugs/lied/physical countermeasures to throw off his diagnosis and he is unable to get the diagnosis correct, or calls it something else because of what you did, does that mean he is not a competent doctor?  Of course not.  And speaking of doctors, with their near decade of school and hands on practice, how about their rate of errors?  How many patients are misdiagnosed every day?  Who among you would have surgery without a second opinion? Shouldn't they be perfect?  I mean, a science that requires all the study, internship and people wager their lives on could not have even 1% error if you look at it from the same angle of the antipoly perspective.  What was it, mail order catalog polygraph - still laughing about that too.  Have your opinion about polygraph, and do what is right to change it, but PLEASE stop teaching rapists how to beat it in order to prove it is inaccurate!  For our children's sakes

orolan wrote on May 10^th, 2003 at 3:40pm:


Thanks for exposing these feminists statistical lies. I didn't have the time to post an example myself. 

We see these false statistics everywhere now and the public is widely victimized by the false statistics because of the draconian laws that are rapidly being passed nationwide. Notice how they are most always aimed at the male gender.

OkieBoy wrote on May 10^th, 2003 at 10:55am:




OkieBoy,

 
As a men's issues activist I would strongly encourage you to pursue the lawsuit. I'm encouraged that you have an attorney that is willing to document the corruption in the system. This is totally biased against males and it is part of the feminist’s agenda to criminalize males. It is part of the reason that America has the highest incarceration of males in the world! Your being listed as a sex offender for a single drunken mistake is tragic.

Finally, these fools that believe this reoffence crap have been brainwashed by statistical lies....but that is another story. The bottom line is that most people that are classified as sex offenders are benign. There is a big difference between an adult preying on children and some drunken fool exposing themself during an isolated event. Tragically, the majority of the public is so brainwashed that they don't get it.


Warble

OkieBoy,
Actually, no sex offense has what could be considered a "high" rate of re-offense.

Sex offenders released from prison have an overall 43.7% re-arrest rate, with 13% of those arrests being for another sex offense. The rate of re-arrest for another sex offense drops down to 2.9% when probationers are included in the count.

DUI offenders released from prison have an overall 51.5% re-arrest rate, with 32% of those arrests being for another DUI. The rub here is that in most states it takes 4-6 prior DUI's before a person gets sent to prison. In Florida it takes 4 DUI's before it is even a felony offense. I don't have any figures taking into account those on probation for DUI, but 60-75% of all DUI arrestees have a prior offense.

So actually, yes you can say that a DUI offender is more likely to re-offend than a sex offender is. But you don't see any of the state legislatures doing anything about it, simply because most of the legislators drink, and those campaign contributions come in handy at re-election time

>>>Let's hope his therapy is working. Sex offenders have a notoriously high reoffense rate.

Actually, only certain sex crimes have high offense rates.
Not all sex offenders.  This is a comman mistake perpetuated by the media and the ignorant masses.
Out of all the people arrested for indecent exposure in my county in the past three years, none have re-offended.  Out of all the people arrested for drunk driving in the past three years, a high majority have reoffended.
So can you say that drunk drivers are more likely to reoffend than sex offenders?  No.  But you can say that drunk drivers are more likely to reoffend than people charged with the sex crime of indencent exposure.

So do your research before spouting non-facts.

-OkieBoy

Marty,
You a right in that objectivity is very difficult to achieve in this area due to the extreme emotional reactions that most people have when they hear "sex offender". The politicians have already proved that.
I don't exactly advocate leniency for sex offenders. But I do think that the laws should either apply to all criminals or none of them. When was the last time you heard of a law that keeps multiple DUI offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any store or other establishment that sell alcohol? Or how about convicted car thiefs not living within 2,000 feet of a car lot? Probably never. But aren't the principals the same? Yes, the crimes are not as heinous as raping a child. But DUI offenders are notorious recidivists, as well as killers (on the road). And if somebody stole my '68 Shelby you can bet I would become severely traumatized emotionally. I know that sounds crazy, but I love that car. Not as much as I love my kids of course, but you get the idea.

Thanks for the references Orolan. I'll save them and check them out when I otherwise have time. This may be one of those areas were objective scientific perspective is really impossible. I don't know if I can achieve that leap.

-Marty

Marty,
Unfortunately, recidivism data is not broken down sufficiently to extract the rate of re-offense for those who have committed an offense against a child. Additionally, many offenses that cause a person to be classified as a sex offender are not included in the "sex offense" category of crime statistics. Those would include indecent exposure, voyeurism, bestiality, etc. 
Most data on recidivism from law enforcement agencies and corrections departments involves crimes in the "sex offense" category of crime reporting. These are crimes that one would consider to be "heinous", like rape, child rape, forcible molestation, etc. Conversely, the recidivism data from mental health organizations tends to include all offenses that would cause a person to be classified as a sex offender.
Here are some of the best and most informative sources for data on sex offenses and offenders. The Bureau of Justice Statistics site is a real eye-opener about the relationships between sex offenders and their victims. And the 1994 study on recidivism is quite informative. Ncianet is a mental health/treatment organization, and eadvocate is a website covering a multitude of sex offender issues. Be prepared, as there is an overwhelming amount of information here. As for books to read, perhaps you should buy Judith Levine's book, "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex". While controversial in some respects, it is quite informative. 
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rpr94.htm
http://www.ncianet.org/comnot.html
http://www.ncianet.org/cns.html
http://www.geocities.com/eadvocate/issues/index.html

Orolan,

I, for one, have long thought the same thing, that pedophiles were more likely to re-offend than other criminals.

Upon retrospection, I can't say you are wrong - It is hard to relate but sexualization is fundamentally not a rational process and in general one expects it occurs in ways that are most likely to propogate the species. Child molesting ain't one of them. Since it is such a powerful force I just assumed it was also probably that the recidivism rate was higher than for other crimes.

So I find your comments peculiar.

Could you please provide details on the cites and possibly web links? Damn odd. You might be right but it goes against my instincts. I buy books on nearly EVERYTHING, except I've never bought one on pedophilia so I'm pretty ignorant here.

-Marty

Quote:


beech,
Perhaps you would like to share some valid data on recidivism rates with us to support this? Or maybe you've been victimized by statistical manipulation like the rest of the country? Allow me to present a relevant example.

Data from the Michigan Board of Parole 1990-1998:
Sex Offenders Paroled - 3,735
Returned To Prison Same Offense - 99 (2.65%)
Returned To Prison Different Offense - 160 (4.28%)

Now the same data, with a twist:

Sex Offenders Returned To Prison - 259 
Returned To Prison Same Offense  - 99 (38.2%)
Returned To Prison Different Offense - 160 (61.8%)

You can see that the percentages have changed drastically. The first set is the correct way to calculate recidivism. The second set is voodoo statistics, and that 61.8% number is what the media uses to tell you that sex offenders have a high reoffense rate. In fact, the opposite is true. Sex offenders actually have one of the lowest reoffense rates of any class of criminal. The US Department of Justice, in the largest report on recidivism ever generated, found the incidence of sex offenders committing a new sex offense to be 2.5% in a study involving the 15 largest states.

Hi,
I am also a convicted sex offender because of an indecent exposure charge that I can't even remember.  I was too high on coke and drunk out of my mind.

The murderers and drug dealers are living it up, while the guy who whiped his drunken dick out has to pay $250 every six months to a sleezy polygrapher who got his liscense from a mail order catalogue.

Screw you idiots who think that all sex offenders deserve this crap! 

I am using the sting technique and I am proud of it!
When I get off of my three year probation this coming August, my lawyer and I are considering sueing the polygrapher and the therapist, and the county I live in.  We are positive we can prove in a court of law that the polygraph is bogus.  I have broken certain rules of probation in front of my lawyer, for instance I drank a beer in front of him and then I stayed out one minute past curfew.  Then I passed the next polygraph test.
He videotaped this so we will have proof in court that the polygraph test is bogus.

Look for me in the news in several months if we decide to go through with the lawsuit.