The type of test you were given was a test to make you think you are doning something wrong.  In other words, it is no more than a tool to keep those who use it to keep their pockets full on the pretends of saving society of sex offenders.

Palerider, Brettski, Twoblock:

It is very sad our world has the problems it does.  Good humans wish they could solve them somehow.  For personal reasons, I wish Palerider well equipped with accurate technology to assist him.

Unfortunately, polygraph testing may present far more problems than solutions.  In the context of Palerider's efforts and LE, a false negative may be far worse than a false positive.  The Green River Killer is a case in point.

So what do we do?  Nothing?  That cannot be countenanced either.  In our dilemma, we permit known offenders such as Brian freedom and wrongly accuse the innocent with polygraph “technology.”

Well guys, I’m proficient with instrumentation and have validated medical equipment for FDA registration before.  Perhaps I can round up some of my colleagues and attempt to improve detection of deception technologies.  It’s something I can do and perhaps we will succeed.  Well, that won’t be difficult for anything is better than what is presently offered.

Palerider, it would please me to assist your goals, if feasible.  What would our world be like though if deception were not routine?   
Perhaps no more poker
or polyticians…

Regards,
Lloyd Ploense

palerider

You just touched on the fallacy of the system concerning this type of person. If Brian is a real person, he is avery sick individual and needs to be in a mental institution undergoing deep psychotherapy and on the correct medications. If he truly wants to get rid of his demon, he would check himself in. The system in place is punitative (gotten many poluted-crats elected)and not geared toward cures. There's nothing you or your machine can do to cure him. Hinkly didn't get prison for shooting a president. Nor was he relegated to a life of polygraphy. He got life in a mental institution.

I know you don't make the laws. You just administer them. However, warehousing mentally ill people in prison or making them take many polygraphs a year will NOT help them become a safe part of society.

Why don't you use your influence and power to get Brian and people like him into a facility where they can get some real help.

From what I have been able to glean, from the little research I have done, is that the sex offender treatment program works pretty well because the recidivism rate of so's is the lowest of all major crimes. But the accute mentally ill, like Brian and those classified as died in the wool predators are not helped by this program. Low risk offenders seem to benefit from the program. I hate these people too, but we are not going about solving the problem totally the right way. Let's take the politician out of the equation and install some common sence.

I would like to see drug dealers, who kill our kids with drugs, be placed under the same restrictions as sex offenders. They should have to register for life as drug dealers and never have contact with kids under 18 either.

To be fair Brettsky:

The examiner who tested me seemed to have no idea what PTSD was and left the room.  He returned referencing a thick book and proceeded with the examination.  I'm satisfied with Palerider's understanding that certain people should never be polygraphed.

I also believe that no one should ever be polygraphed for polygraphy is far too inaccurate to base life decisions on it.

Thanks for chipping in Brettsky.

Lloyd

palerider wrote on Aug 16^th, 2007 at 12:53am:


Palerider,

When you insult two people at the same time, they don’t cancel each other out: you’re just insulting two people. Even though you believe Lloyd’s story, your declaration that the false positive was caused by either the examiner’s incompetence, or by Lloyd’s failure to report his condition is demeaning to both of them. The third most probable explanation is that the polygraph procedure is flawed.

What makes you think that “Shlub” administered the polygraph test incorrectly? It’s entirely possible that “Shlub” followed his training to the letter, only to erroneously fail Lloyd anyway. Agreed, Lloyd’s motivation to consume his own poison is a compelling argument for his innocence, but if his charts showed signs of deception, wouldn’t “Shlub” be obliged to report his findings? If he had taken measures to ensure Lloyd passed because the facts suggest he had no motive, wouldn’t that have been evidence tampering? 

Polygraphs inevitably lead to poor decision making because there is no valid theory that explains and describes the relationship between emotions and physiology. There is no unique pattern associated with deception, or any emotion for that matter. Such a theory on emotions and physiology would be able to predict how love, stress, and hatred will affect our heart rate and perspiration: never to be confused with the fear of being caught lying.

Nothing reveals the polygraphs shortcomings more than the practitioners of the art deriding each other as the one bad apple that makes the rest of them look unprofessional. “When you start right, you end right.” The polygraph will inevitably lead to poor decision making because there is no valid theory supporting it. It’s not that “Shlub” does his job improperly; he just shouldn’t be doing this job in the first place.

-Brettski

Huh? I never insulted Lloyd's character, and I have never blamed him for adverse results of his test. In fact, I called his examiner a "shlub" ----provided that his story is true----and lean very heavily toward Lloyd's truthfulness, sight unseen. I have never denied false positives or false negatives----and considering such inevidibilities gives me no comfort.

Excuse me while I get some rest, as I have a 3 hour appointment with a very gentle, nice man named Brian. Brian was arrested for molesting his 4 year old daughter----he has a fixation on drinking the urine of very small girls. He has told of his struggles with fantasies of nearby girls at stores and around his neighborhood and feeling very guilty of such thoughts----thoughts that are so graphic, I don't believe non-offenders on this site need to read-----although I have many clients who come to this site to grasp at the straw of a way to beat their test-----which I have my own potent methods of revealing such activities(my secret, sorry). Brian really wants to change----and if he knew what part of his brain gave him such proclivities, he would dig it out with a spoon and pocket knife. He is courageous for facing his demons, but he is nonetheless very, very dangerous. We as a community need to use every variation of supervision that we can get our hands on----to help protect our kids, and also to protect Brian from his addiction.

Quote:


Stan

Quote:


Lloyd,

I don't think palerider understands the limitations of polygraph testing. He said in no uncertain terms that "We don't put our children's safety at the hands of a test that is ANYTHING less than 100%." Furthermore it seems to me that he made some low key attacks on your character: "My job is especially difficult when people such as yourself have a really bad experience with some shlub, or maybe by virtue of you ignoring his likely questions about your former mental health." Palerider clearly believes that false positives don't occur, and if they do occur, it was YOUR fault, not the polygraphs. YOU didn't disclose your PSTD, therefore you have no one but yourself to blame. I disagree. The situation was forseeable by a reasonable person, and the LE knew, or ought to have known that the polygraph would fail, especially in this case. The term for this is negligence.

I address this to you rather than palerider because you have let your fear of child molesters cloud your judgement. That, and palerider is beyond convincing. If we should use any, and all means available to hunt down and monitor sex offenders, why not torture? Torture makes people talk, and it's not like sex offenders have rights, they are evil after all. What about capital punishment, let's just kill em all, and wash our hands of the whole mess. The issue isn't about what sex offenders deserve, or how much of threat they are to our children: all criminals are "evil." Saying that sex offenders are evil monsters lurking amongst us with "a level of deception not seen in the general population" is fear mongering, and certainly doesn't prove that polygraphs will be any more reliable than it was with employee screening.

You shouldn't accept polygraphs just because your afraid, and I have one word for anyone who would say otherwise: evil. The more serious the situation is, the more important it is that decisions are made only a reliable information. Palerider is no hero protecting society with "3 hours to get to the truth." This isn't 24, and he's not Jack Bauer. Please don't listen to that drama queen on a power trip.

Stan:

I'm moving away from this topic because I don't wish to interfere with palerider and his goals.  As for pinging you Sir, we are after all in a public forum.  I am using my true legal name.  I am a proud and law abiding citizen of New Providence Borough, Union County, New Jersey in the USA.

Is Stan_Smith your real name?  Are you willing to identify yourself in the same manner?  If not, I pray you are not offended if a citizen does a little lawful research.  A ping is not a hack attempt and is lawful Dude.  Hope you don't mind.  Consider it like looking up your name in an online telephone directory.  BTW Stan, telephone harassment is unlawful as the person identified by a recent communications data warrant has learned to his chagrin.  He could not hide behind a “restricted” phone number.

For a proponent of polygraphy to feel so negatively about a simple ping is quite duplicitous is it not Stan?

For what its worth Stan, I thank you for your concern about my difficult situation.  I don’t mind if you goad me a bit either.  That is after all a hallmark or the polygraph testing we discuss on this site.

Lloyd Ploense

Quote:

Well TwoBlock:

The nameless one has been rather silent of late.  Perhaps you are correct.  However, it was I who first engaged new member Stan_Smith after reading a few of his postings.

What do you think Lethe, 1904 and EosJupiter?  I'd hoped Stan_Smith was NJ LE.  Could TwoBlock be correct?  Has anyone ping traced nonombre? Can someone ping Stan_Smith?  I don't have McAfee trace on any of my computers anymore, just this Symantec stuff.  Yet, a ping trace won't necessarily reveal true location but just that of the proxy server (if used) and that can be disguised by rotation.

The actual identity of Stan_Smith is not important though.  He is just another anonymous irritant as we strive towards our mutual goal.  

Speaking of goals, lets all lay off palerider.  He uses all legal means, no matter how faulty they might be, to accomplish a necessary end to the best of his ability.  I think palerider might be one of the very few users who really understand the limitations of polygraph testing.

Sisyphus never rolled a boulder as treacherous as a polygraph.  Polygraphy could have never satisfied Tantalus if he hungered for truth and would have comprised a tormentors’ jest crueler than that devised by the Gods.  As Graves, Ovid and Wordsworth accounted, the Danaides were eternally tormented with the task of drawing water from a well using a leaky bucket.  A sieve cannot contain concepts such as the truth.  I really wish we had a functional truth/falsehood detector for palerider to use.  Methinks we could all appreciate that as the palerider strives to accomplish his worthy goal.

Lloyd Ploense

lol, talk about false acusations.  What questions have I been asked that I have not answered?

Stan

Your posts are remarkably like Nonombre. You ask questions but seldon ever answer questions. If you do answer they are nonsubstantive. Me thinks...???? I don't think Nonombre wants to engage Lloyd as Nonombre.

Lloyd,

Just curious, who's making allegations and what is it exactly that they are alleging?

Stan

Yep Stan:

You are correct in some respects.  But WHAT A NUISANCE!  I'm not one to be kicked in the back and pretend I like it Dude.

I’ve also had to contend with numerous bizarre false accusations made to the department of youth and family services.  Fortunately, the forensic examiners of DYFS used their eyes, ears AND minds rather than the "prop con" mechanisms of polygraph testing to reach the conclusion that all allegations were unfounded.

Guess that’s just life in America, the land of specious accusations and the home of ?

Lloyd Ploense

lloyd,

If you are truly innocent of what they are accusing you of, then there is no way they can convict you of it using ONLY a polygraph.  I don't know how many different ways I can say this.

If you are truly innocent of this, I would assume your family would obviously believe that you are, and it should be nothing more than a nusciance.  As I said before, methinks you doth protest too much.  If LE has no other evidence to back up their claims that you poisoned your own wedding cake (even typing that seems ludicrous), then it will be dropped, period.  If you are innocent as you claim, don't worry about it, let it run it's course, let the police make their false accusations and when their investigations come up with nothing, move on and live your life.

Stan

Stan:

A Clarification Sir:
1) I am the victim of a crime, the poisoning of our wedding cake;
2) LE asked me to take a polygraph exam;
3) During the examination, I was asked if I committed the crime myself;
4) I truthfully responded no;
5) The LE interrogator told me the polygraph exam indicated I was not telling the truth;
6) I have not been charged with a crime I did not commit.

It is quite simple Stan.  Polygraph testing is not accurate and perhaps will always yield a false positive under these circumstances.  Particularly if the victim suffers from PTSD.  LE in NJ seems to realize that.

When I have more time I will discuss in writing and in detail the most effective use of polygraph testing: Harassment and manipulation through false accusations.  I was wrong Stan.  Some persons can really use that tool EFFECTIVELY!  I don't fault LE for that though.  They were just doing their job.

Lloyd Ploense

[quote author=Lloyd Ploense link=1185490801/30#35 date=1187297757]Well Stan,

I have not been charged with a crime because I did not commit one.  I was the victim of a crime.  Despite that, during a polygraph interrogation I was accused of commiting the crime I am the victim of.  How bizzare!  That is why I'm upset.

So Lloyd, are you are you not being accused of a crime?  Double speak does not help your case.

lloyd,

You assume all that post here bashing polygraphy are innocent.  I tend to think otherwise.

Stan

Well Stan,

I have not been charged with a crime because I did not commit one.  I was the victim of a crime.  Despite that, during a polygraph interrogation I was accused of commiting the crime I am the victim of.  How bizzare!  That is why I'm upset.

Considering what I wrote on another thread, I think polygraph operators do not care if innocent people are harmed with false accusations that produce false positives.  'Hey Man, you hold the nail while I swing the hammer!'

When a false positive occurs in polygraphy, is the only consequence to an innocent person false imprisonment?  Can you show evidence of that?  Can you show it with the family consequenses inherent to this threads subjects?

Lloyd Ploense

With everyone throwing around percentages and statistics, I once again ask the question yet to be answered....Can anyone site a single person who was wrongfully jailed due SOLEY to a polygraph test.   

If not, and as I've said before, if it is used a useful tool, I see nothing wrong with it.  Nobody will be wrongfully incarcerated soley on polygraph testimony.  There will always have to be back up evidence.   While I agree that using it as a tool for job applications is a bit sketchy, as a law enforcement tool, it seems useful if used as only one piece of evidence to point police in the right direction.

I've read many posts here and I am still not convinced that polygraphs are not a useful tool.  I'd even give odds that many of those posting here against it as a criminal detection tool are guilty of the crime they are being charged with and using their postings here to attempt to make themselves look innoncent.

Just my opinion.

Stan

Greetings PaleRider:

Respectfully Sir, I beg to agree and disagree at the same time.

Long ago during very dark days of my life there was a “prop con” artist named Clarence McCormick.  Clarence misapplied common psychological test procedures to convince parents their children needed to attend his unlicensed school/clinic.  When a Judge in IL terminated his public operations he reopened covertly in the basement of his home.  Clarence had this thing about suffocating and strangling innocent young children.  I’ve witnessed him beat children suffering from autism and Down’s syndrome into bloody pulps.  That basement on Forest Avenue in River Forest, IL, probably still reeks with the stench of the urine, feces and vomit voided by terrified children.  Clarence was well paid by deluded parents to ‘play school’ and thoroughly enjoyed his work.  Perhaps he experienced some sort of sexual thrill from this.

Another very convincing “prop con” artist from IL was "Pogo the Clown."  Pogo wore a very proper visage and was even photographed with future-First Lady Rosalynn Carter.  Later we came to know Pogo as John Wayne Gacy.

PaleRider, you are correct pal.  You’re preaching to the choir.  There are some very sick people out there that must be identified, caught and stopped.  The inevitable question now is:
Once we have accomplished this, why do we release them?

Personally, I’d like to see all the verified sex offenders gathered on a large ship and sent to the Bikini Atoll.  Once there, they might be assigned a Geiger counter and a pair of tweezers to remove radioactive contaminated particles mote by mote…

That will never occur while “treatment” options are available.  Our mental health professionals needs collect their fine salary as they “rehabilitate” these mentally ill criminals and return them to our neighborhoods.  I see your difficulty PaleRider.

Still though Sir, I am opposed to polygraph testing.  I personally know for a fact that the false positive percentage for detection of deception technologies is unacceptably high.  There is an uninvestigated positive interference when a good and honest citizen is falsely accused of heinous crimes against those he or she loves.  This is particularly acute when the falsely accused human is actually the victim who reported the crime in the first place.

I agree Sir that you must use all legal methods to identify and constrain sex offenders.  These include an array of interrogation techniques that may be tailored to a person’s belief systems:
1)      If a person believes in god, you may claim god revealed in a vision to you exactly what he or she did;
2)      If a person believes in the horoscope, you may tell him/her that their offensive behavior was forecast in the Sunday paper;
3)      If a person believes in spirits, you may claim that a medium has communicated their guilt;
4)      Etc…

Polygraph testing though presents quite a conundrum PaleRider.  It is a two edged sword that is very inaccurate on the backstroke.  Innocent people can be easily decapitated.  For this reason I can never conscience polygraph testing.  That I consider similar to the use of bis 2-chloroethyl sulfide as a weapon of war.  Mustard gas presents too much collateral damage and poisons the land for a long time.  All civilized nations have outlawed chemical weapons for this reason among others.

While polygraph examinations remain legal in the US, I beg you Sir to check your backstroke conscientiously.

Sincerely,
Lloyd Levander Ploense
PS: Long ago a woman I dated spoke an old adage to me: “If wishes were horses all beggars would ride.”  Ride on PaleRider but I beg of you again, check your backstroke!

My job is especially difficult when people such as yourself have a really bad experience with some shlub, or maybe by virtue of you ignoring his likely questions about your former mental health----and then you go out on a crusade against something that may have been misused on you, but is perfectly suited for others (this is the part where the deaf parrots around here say that "it isn't real science" and yadayada)-----Poly is perfectly suited for others such as people who the criminal justice system has a real problem with----sex offenders. My problem on this site is with the projectors who want to believe that most people who take polygraphs are fawns such as yourself who are caught up in an evil trap, rather than evil people who are just plain caught. About 5% of my offenders reoffend---and they aren't caught by gps, cops, or any other boyscout or gizmo. They are caught by clinicians and interrogaters who have less than 3 hours to get to the truth with the aid of a really cool instrument that indicates in most cases, serious deceptions regarding whether they have been touching the sexual parts of children.

Fortunately I'm an engineer and don't willingly associate with creeps.  You can keep them Sir.  Just thought I'd mention a few things.  You seem to have all that covered though.  I'm glad you're on the case.

Please try not to be so offensive.  Your job must be very difficult.  I hope they are not rubbing off on you.   

Lloyd Ploense

Lloyd, based on your theories as to how to replace the role of polygraph in the monitoring of sex offenders, it is clear that you know precisely 2 things about supervising sex offenders. Jack and Shit, and Jack left town. What the hell good does gps have when reoffense usually takes place at the offender's home or work----if you knew beans, you'd know this. GPS has distinct advantages and pluses, but it has great limitations. Chemical castration------equally limited, but popular with the ignorant as the most dangerous offenders don't need their dick to offend (there are plenty of paraplegics who offend without their plumbing.) The best ways to monitor sex offenders----and each have inherent weaknesses---are all of the above. Regular sheduled interrogations, GPS, chemical treatments (on high risk fellas), and regular drug tests and home visits with surreptitious drive bye's. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know dick about supervising sex offenders. You can argue the empirical data as to why we do what we do---i.e. the registry and the fact that the vast majority do not offend against schools or stranger's children----regardless, the crimes against children are so heinous, that many offenders will suffer to protect those children who are statistically certain to die from demonic types of abuse.My advise------steal, hurt, do drugs-------but if you molest a child or rape a woman-------you are crappity smacked. Sorry.


I have a feeling that if a sexual predator lived next door to you, you would prefer all of the above tools for supervision----including polygraph. About one third of my sex offender population struggle with sexual fantasies of nearby children---- your children. One therapist told me that even if polygraph were 50% accurate (he knows better), he loves it. The majority of polygraph tests ran in the US are on sex offenders-----like it or not.  The majority of sex offenders lie with a level of proficiency not seen in the general population. A web search and some snippets read here and there will not paint the picture----despite many on this site who claim to have knowledge of the field as they've read 20,000 words on the subject. Fight the applicant screening all you want----but leave the sex offender testing alone, as we aren't giving the keys to the nursery to Offenders who manage a passed polygraph. We don't put our children's safety at the hands of a test that is ANYTHING less than 100%.