Legit concerns D. But walk in the shoes.... When you have a limited # of poly questions, and a world of questions---well, you know it's tough. I was unable to identify dangerous behavior from an offender due to concerns by team members that were not the crux of that Offender's new method of manipulation. This is a simple concept. I would be interested to see if your Offender had been administered a Monitoring Exam (committing new sex crimes)vs. a Maintenace exam (breaking supervision rules). Somehow, I doubt he was given a monitoring exam. I think at last count I totaled 700 target areas that could be tested on a polygraph for supervision and/or sexual crime issues. On each polygraph test, ya got 4 to 8 issues to test. On behalf of Sex Offender Containment professionals, I apoligize that we aren't doing better Digithead.

Wonder_Woman wrote on Sep 26^th, 2007 at 2:17am:


If you had looked at my previous posts about Duncan, I already linked to them but good job on using Google...

What about the time between 6/11/96 and 3/26/97? There were at least two more polygraph exams in that time frame since he was on quarterly exams. They haven't been posted to the web, I hope they eventually surface but I'm guessing that he "passed" those too. After I get done with other projects I intend to research this more fully using FOA with the State of Washington. As for the last "failed" exam, Duncan only admitted to smoking marijuana and being around his girlfriend's kids without the permission of his PO. He then absconded soon after this to California and murdered Anthony Martinez....

Duncan was sent back to prison in 1997 not for his polygraph failure but for parole absconding. Authorities never suspected him of the Martinez murder until after the Groene murders. He finished out his sentence in 2000, moved to North Dakota and the rest is unfortunate history. Including the fact that he was let out by a judge in MN on very low bond for suspected child molestation because the judge didn't have his record... 

Wonder_Woman wrote on Sep 26^th, 2007 at 2:17am:


Trust me, I know there is blame for the entire criminal justice system regarding this psychopath but sadly, you're wrong. There were a specific chain of events and they all lead back to the polygraph not catching his true intial offenses...

Wonder_Woman wrote on Sep 26^th, 2007 at 2:17am:

Since you asked: 

I worked for 4 years in a state correctional system and another 3 as a state CJ program evaluator. Now I'm finishing my Ph.D. in criminal justice; I teach criminal justice classes (intro to CJ, policing, sex offending, research methods) at a large university; and I advise students on their CJ career choices. I also do research into correctional treatment programs, sex offender treatment programs, criminological theory, sentencing policy, and the use of pseudoscience in law enforcement (alas, the polygraph isn't the only one). My hope is that my research will help improve law enforcement and the criminal justice system...

By the way, your argument uses something called special pleading which is a type of logical fallacy. Also, appealing to emotion is another type of logical fallacy. Try sticking with the facts, they usually work pretty well on their own...

Wonder_Woman wrote on Sep 26^th, 2007 at 2:17am:


If you're going to try to use humor, it should at least be funny...

Snake_Eater wrote on Sep 25^th, 2007 at 11:26pm:



Snake Eater,
I am on a 2 week vacation and have been cruising this and other polygraph sites frequently. I am not a DODPI cheerleader, period. You on the other hand have shown a dementia and rage that worries me. Your winning battle cry over your (LVA) professed victory over DACA is as grave as my lower battle cry from eating White Castle Hamburgers. To be frank, no one believes you pal. You know a few names, and you know a thing or two about cut and paste---hell, you might have even ran a test or two with your Winnie the Pooh Mr. Microphone. But talk to your Doctor about Lexapro. The government is using VSA because they can't get enough examiners to fill the polygraph positions, not because polygraph is put out of favor. LVA gets a little break with testing low value targets for economical research and Snake man here thinks it's V-Day.

D-head said:
As I have also pointed out previously, Joseph Duncan, who has been convicted and sentenced in the deaths of Groene family in North Idaho, was on PSCOT polygraph in the mid-90s. It has now come to light that he has admitted to murdering two young girls in Seattle. The murders occurred while he was on quarterly polygraph examinations and were never discovered by the polygraph. Please make sure everyone reads that sentence again...   
 
How can we trust the polygraph if it can't catch a murderer? 
 

D-head, I just was looking around on the net for this information to confirm your info (instead of insisting you provide proof of your assumptions like you guys like to).  I have found several polygraph reports but I will just let you know the last 4.  5/23/95 truthful, 9/16/95 truthful, 6/11/96 truthful, 3/26/97 DECEPTIVE.  The two girls Sammijo White and Carmen Cubia disappeared 7/6/96 (for those intellectually challenged, that was after his truthful exam).   Also for those challenged individuals Duncan was also suspected in a case on a boy named Anthony Martinez on 4/4/97 (that one would have been after he was found deceptive).   The reports I read said he was sent back to prison on a parole violation on 7/14/00.  I don't see any other polygraphs after 3/26/97 and the time frame between 6/11/96 and 3/26/97 is not QUARTERLY.  In 2005 when Shasta was taken (and her family was sexually abused and murdered ) Duncan had been released from prison and he wasn't on supervision - he only had to register his address.

Perhaps your anger should be directed elsewhere.  His PO was probably trying to keep track of 75 sex offenders and putting out fires daily.  The murders are not based on him passing a polygraph.  Be pissed off at the States for releasing these bastards!  At least us polygraph examiners are trying to help save children.  What have you done lately other than bitch on this site. 

If I recall this site is only 5-6 years old, so I can't blame the anti site for their 'never admit anything' motto after a failed poly.   

Don't get your panties in a wad when it isn't necessary.  

Make sure eveyone reads that last statement!

Well Dr. DODPI, once again you and your buddies like to throw around your peer reviewed scientific studies, despite the fact the vast majority have not been supported by peer review, and as usual you stifle the dissenting views, as is well documented about your Matchbook University (DACA).  Once someone breaks with the DODPI party-line they are dismissed, transferred or fired.  It is true, check the records folks --- it is all in the public domain.  In fact, wasn’t it the NAS that exposed the unscientific and biased approach of your so called scientific research?  So let’s turn to your latest scientific study “Honts and Alloway.”  First off who funded this study?  Secondly, who wrote the protocols?  Third and most important, it is as bogus as all previous DODPI and DODPI-like studies for one simple reason – it was conducted in the absence of true jeopardy.  Dr. DODPI, you know as well as I do that so called “scientific studies” attempting to recreate jeopardy in a laboratory environment are invalid. I already know you will try to justify these shams with your 50 cent words, but you know they don’t work.  But they are easily manipulated to provide the desired outcome.  They are just smoke screens used to manipulate decision makers about a capability that does not work effectively in the real world.  That is why DOD is switching to LVA.  As we speak DOD has students attending LVA training.  Polygraph and DACA are on the way out.  Current DOD statistic regarding your magic box provide it is only 70-80% accurate in the field.  Throw in a 25% inconclusive rate and the true accuracy is at best about 60%.  Sure its better than tossing a coin, but we are not playing a game (you might be, but the real warriors aren’t).  And, in fact your buddy Robert Andrews was fired.  It is in Bill Gertz’s reporting this week.  I know it says he “resigned” but that is just Washington DC code for being fired.  I know the facts about his half-assed performance and leaking of information to the press without authority.  Shame on you and your poly-boys Dr. DODPI….

 

Now let’s take a look at the stellar Honts and Alloway scientific study you so easily cite:

 

Abstract:

 

Purpose Detailed information about the comparison question test (CQT) and possible countermeasures are now available on the Internet. This study examined whether the provision of such information would affect the validity of the Test for Espionage and Sabotage, a directed lie variant of the CQT. 

 

Method Forty participants were divided into four equal groups: guilty, guilty informed, innocent, and innocent informed. During a first appointment, participants either did or did not commit a mock crime: then some were provided with a book containing detailed information on the CQT, including possible countermeasures. After 1 week with the book, all participants were administered a CQT during their second appointment. Following the polygraph, participants responded to a questionnaire that asked them about their behaviour and perceptions during their examination.

 

Wow this is really scientific….   Let’s dream up a mock crime and base the entire results of our bogus study on this fakery.  I hope they don’t test drugs that way - making up mock diseases and using people as lab rats test snake-oil.  Man you make me sick…  I hope you are not a real government employee because you are wasting tax payer dollars posting on this site all day instead of working.  Oh, I forgot, that is your job once you finish emptying the ashtrays you have plenty of time to dream up idiotic postings.  I feel so safe at night knowing there are bureaucrats such as you keeping America free….

Paradiddle wrote on Sep 25^th, 2007 at 10:30pm:


It's niche usage definitely leads to false assurances that it can contain sex offenders because it's pseudoscience. I have a hatred of all pseudoscience because they are harmful to society...

But with regard to specifics. First, if a sex offender passes a maintenance polygraph they are kept at the same level of supervision. It's not until they fail a maintenance polygraph that any investigation or increase in surveillance/supervision occurs. Given the high likelihood of false negatives in this group this provides false assurances..

Second, if passed polygraphs are to be taken with a grain of salt then why are they used for maintenance purposes, i.e. complying with treatment and supervision protocols? If it's because of their utility for eliciting confessions then again this provides false assurances. Remember the number one countermeasure to make no damaging admissions?

Again, I'll repeat what said about Joseph Duncan: he murdered two girls in Seattle while on PCSOT. His one failed polygraph for marijuana use and being around his girlfriend's two daughters without his P.O.'s consent came more than six months after he murdered the Seattle girls. If the polygraph had any real utility, it should have at least picked up on the fact he committed murder. It didn't and he went on to murder at least 6 more people. If this isn't a prime example of false assurances then I can't help you...

Finally, it's the people that peddle this pseudoscience that are blind, not me. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, if you've been bamboozled long enough you'll reject any evidence of the bamboozle...

digithead wrote on Sep 25^th, 2007 at 3:48am:




I am looking forward to this research paper D-Head. If you can convince me, than you can convince anyone. I am however a little puzzled by just who you are referring to who has such "false assurances." Most professionals I deal with in the PCSOT arena take passed polygraphs with a grain of salt. It seems that your hatred for polygraph blinds you to it's niche usage.

my 2 cents

In the 1970's and 80's, when enough people in the private workplace suffered similiar experiences to your's, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 was enacted.

Wonder_Woman wrote on Sep 25^th, 2007 at 1:11am:

I feel bad for the people like me, who "believed" in the polygraph and went into my tests believing all I had to do was tell the truth and I would pass.  I was completely mystified when I failed three in a row, because I had been telling the complete truth in all of them.  At the time I was completely ignorant of the existance of CM's, and I certainly didn't try to employ any.  The sum total of my knowledge of the polygraph came from the fiction I saw on TV and in the movies, i.e., if you lie the polygraph machine will show that you are lying.

Do you feel bad for the person who takes the exam, tells the truth, and fails?  Or do you console yourself when that happens but telling yourself the person must have been attempting CM's in a misguided attempt to protect himself from a false positive?
Or do you, like many of the examiners on this site, shrug away those people who claimed to have told the truth and still failed with the sentiment that, even if that is true, the polygraph catches more liars than it unjustly screws truthful people?

I didn't look for any information and I still lost out on three prospective employers.  I should say, rather than I lost out on them, that they lost out on me.  Since the BS polygraph removed me from their hiring process I finally passed my fourth polygraph and have since worked for over ten years as a police officer.   

I think that it is preferrable to have knowledge, regardless of the situation.  My lack of knowledge of the polygraph didn't make it any easier for me to pass, even though I told the truth.

I don't see how you can truly believe that providing information on how the polygraph works and what the test procedure consists of can possible be harmful.  Unless, of course, you wish to admit that the polygraph is not a valid scientific test.

Wonder_Woman wrote on Sep 25^th, 2007 at 1:11am:


Let me tell you what irks me:

These admissions are solely from the bogus pipeline effect (see Sigall and Jones 1971) and not from any ability by the polygraph to detect lies. Even the voice stress analyzer which has been shown to be unreliable has this effect. This utility to elicit admissions is rendered useless once the subject knows the bogus nature of the instrument which is one of the many reasons why PSCOT use of the polygraph is a threat to society...

In addition, prior research has shown that some offenders have lied about offending to please the polygrapher and therapist (Kokish, et al, 2005). How is this useful in the treatment of sex offenders?

As I have pointed out before, serial use of the polygraph also has habituation and sensitization concerns that render the polygraph useless. Even if the polygraph were 90% accurate (which the peer-reviewed literature outside of the Polygraph trade magazine does not support), I've been able to show that the presence of even minimal serial correlation substantially lowers the accuracy of subsequent polygraphs. I'm about ready to send this paper off to a journal, I'll have George post it once it gets through the first rounds of review...

As I have also pointed out previously, Joseph Duncan, who has been convicted and sentenced in the deaths of Groene family in North Idaho, was on PSCOT polygraph in the mid-90s. It has now come to light that he has admitted to murdering two young girls in Seattle. The murders occurred while he was on quarterly polygraph examinations and were never discovered by the polygraph. Please make sure everyone reads that sentence again... 

How can we trust the polygraph if it can't catch a murderer?

Finally, as George, Dr. Richardson, myself and others have pointed out, the polygraph provides false assurances that have, as in the Duncan case, and certainly will lead to more serious crimes against society. It must be abandoned...

Wonder_Woman wrote on Sep 25^th, 2007 at 1:11am:


No one baited you into posting on this website. It was your choice. I hope you won't regret it. Those who are dedicated to the truth should have nothing to fear from a frank debate.

Quote:


You've no doubt also polygraphed people who believed in polygraphs until you incorrectly accused them of deception. But in most cases, such persons will have the better judgment not to question polygraphy to your face.

Quote:


But you have no way of knowing how many you've polygraphed who employed countermeasures and were not caught. The fact remains that no polygrapher has ever demonstrated the ability to reliably detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Quote:


On what do you base this belief? How much of it is based on self-interest?

Quote:


You really have no way of knowing whether policeHopeful, who posted in another thread, is "guilty" of disqualifying behavior or plans on lying to any relevant question. In any event, despite your expressed concern about innocent persons looking for information being "psyched out" by this website, you haven't pointed out anything published here about polygraphy that is untrue.

Quote:


Precisely because they don't work: simply telling the truth is no guarantee that one will pass. If it were, this site would not exist.

Quote:


No it doesn't. The polygraph detects physiological changes that may stem from a multitude of uncontrolled and uncontrollable factors. As Professor John Furedy has observed, polygraph techniques have no real way of differentiating between the nervous-but-innocent and the nervous-and-guilty.

Quote:


You may make this choice, but it doesn't inspire confidence.

Quote:


How accurate do you believe them to be? And on the basis of what evidence?

Quote:


Unfortunately, that's not the way things work in practice. With most agencies, the applications of those who "fail" their pre-employment polygraph examinations are summarily terminated. 

Quote:


This is an example of the utility, and not the validity, of polygraphy. As Dr. Drew Richardson has pointed out, post conviction sex offender "testing" is every bit as invalid as pre-employment polygraph screening. And as public understanding that polygraphy is a pseudoscience inevitably grows, the utility of the polygraph for eliciting admissions from those who might otherwise be unwilling to make them will inevitably wane.

Thanks wounder-woman, It isn't the questions so much as me just coming of as a lier just because im nerveous. The only thing I might have to worry about is the fact that I worked 48 on and 12 0ff for so long that once or twice I took PQD's that belonged to someone else to help me get some good sleep but my old partner who is now with the same agency said I should be alright. thanks for the advice.

Boy, did I get bated into that one.  That is why I have refrained from joining these discussions over the years.   

George, I respect your opinon on polygraphs.  I don't agree with it, but you are entitled it.  I have tested hundreds of people that also didn't believe in polygraphs and after the test their opinion changed.  I have also tested many that attempted CMs and got caught.  I understand your quest to conquer polygraphs but I think that your site harms more than it helps.  I don't give a crap if a guilty person like policeHopeful wants to come in and lie (and get caught) but I feel bad for the innocent person looking for information and finds this site and gets psyched out - they loose out on a prospective employer due to the measures they use.

If polygraphs don't work - then why do you suggest CM's?  Bottom line is the polygraph detects 'physiological changes' that are indicative of deception on the naive and educated examinee.  Now, I do not intend to debate art vs science, provide research, take the challenge or reveal how I can detemine if CMs are used.  Do I believe they are 100% accurate? No.  On pre-employment exams the investigator should do a thorough job before the polygraph.  If there is arousal on a particular area, the info should be given back to the investigator for further investigation.  We don't believe the hiring process should be based entirely on the polygraph.   

As for PCSOT, I have found hundreds if not thousands of victims over the years that would not be known if it were not for the polygraph - on both the naive and educated examinee.  It is because of this issue that this site really irks me.

Wonder_Woman wrote on Sep 25^th, 2007 at 12:24am:


"Wonder Woman,"

How on earth would you know that "most of the time" 43rdbravo "psychs him- or herself out" by reading this site? If there is anything on this site (particularly in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) you believe to be false or misleading, please explain.

I would agree with you that applicants for positions of public trust have an ethical obligation to answer relevant questions truthfully, and it is perhaps not a bad idea for applicants to inquire about whether something of concern would be disqualifying.

But unfortunately, simply getting a good night's sleep, having something to eat before the polygraph exam, and telling the truth is no guarantee that one will pass the polygraph. I did precisely that on my FBI and LAPD polygraphs and was falsely accused of deception and using countermeasures (at a time when I didn't even know what countermeasures are). And many have had similar experiences.

Wonder_Woman wrote on Sep 25^th, 2007 at 12:18am:


Of course, you don't want examinees to believe the polygraph is magic or voodoo. You want them to think it's "scientific." But it isn't. The lie detector cannot detect lies, and it is only effective at inducing admissions/confessions to the extent that an examinee naively believes it can.

43rdbravo - what questions are you afraid of?  Most of the time you just psych yourself out by reading this site.  Contact the agency you are looking at and see if your concern would disqualify you.  Then stop stressing, get a good nights sleep and have something to eat before the exam.  Go into the exam and be truthful!

tbld wrote on Sep 24^th, 2007 at 9:25am:



I don't want any examinee to believe what I do is magical or voodoo.  I too do not fighten confessions out of people.  You know that damn thing actually works!

tbld

I'm not mad.  And you did not answer my question.  I am a private examiner, why would someone pay me to frighten them into a confession? 

sorry quote radio button didnt work

Quote:
Reply #7 - Today at 8:38am    David Copperfield does not want anyone to think he has magical powers.  His show works indepentant of whether you believe it is the result of magic or careful planning.  Copperfield provides a service, i.e. entertainment which people pay to enjoy.  Because some polyexs choose to use PL comparison questions. you cannot assume from that fact alone that PL questions are necessary to all techniques.   
 
Explain to me, please, why you think someone would pay for me to frighten them into a confession?   
HUH ?!?!?!!?
I never said anything about Copperfield wanting people to belive he had magical powers. I said believing in polys is like believing that copperfield has magical powers. Where did you get that skew from? Oh wait your a PG hmm...  polys are indeed used to  frighten confessions out of people. They believe it can detect lies and are therefore voodooed into believing it works Kind of like a placebo (placebo is a preparation which is pharmacologically inert but which may have a therapeutical effect based solely on the power of suggestion)Hence the pg test they  think the machine can catch them in a lie, and the result is the same as if the test really does work.   
p.s. I think your just mad beacuse you got compared to David Copperfield maybe Ill use David Blaine next time......

  Re: Question Going for Poly Soon
Reply #7 - Today at 8:38am    David Copperfield does not want anyone to think he has magical powers.  His show works indepentant of whether you believe it is the result of magic or careful planning.  Copperfield provides a service, i.e. entertainment which people pay to enjoy.  Because some polyexs choose to use PL comparison questions. you cannot assume from that fact alone that PL questions are necessary to all techniques.   
 
Explain to me, please, why you think someone would pay for me to frighten them into a confession?   
Don't drink the kool-aid!

David Copperfield does not want anyone to think he has magical powers.  His show works indepentant of whether you believe it is the result of magic or careful planning.  Copperfield provides a service, i.e. entertainment which people pay to enjoy.  Because some polyexs choose to use PL comparison questions. you cannot assume from that fact alone that PL questions are necessary to all techniques.   

Explain to me, please, why you think someone would pay for me to frighten them into a confession?

Believing that polys work is like believing that David Copperfield really is magical.. Copperfield wants you to believe in his magic and so do the polygraphers.  It is used to  frighten confessions out of people. The users of the machine don't really believe it can detect lies, (ok well maybe some do)  They know that the people  given the test  think the machine can catch them in a lie. The result is the same as if the test really does work. 

I am also considering law enforcment after 10yrs in EMS and I am afraid of the questions. What can I do to prepair myself for them?

policeHopeful wrote on Sep 21^st, 2007 at 7:51pm:

I did answer your question.

If you supplied incorrect or incomplete information to your background investigator you should get in touch with them ASAP and tell them of your error.

hi sarge could you view my post and possibly answer my question for me? thanks