Underjustice wrote on Dec 9^th, 2007 at 7:20pm:

Well in my situation i told the truth on a post conviction Polygraph and they said i flat out lied. So after that I had to do SO classes yuck so my lawyer told me to go with the flow and I did I didn't know about this website but I figured If i was telling the truth originally then i would start lying on future polygraphs hell I didnt change anything had computers when I wasn't supposed to saw hookers porn did what I pleased but i was careful so then when it came time for the polygraph I simply went in and flat out lied on every question except for the control questions and i went on to pass 8 straight polygraphs. Then I finished up the class and I was released from classes and probation so long story short I was convicted of a he said she said situation and it was my fault as far as going to the cops telling my side and got screwed over royally now I don't trust cops nor will i ever help them I despise them. Oh and the polygraphs are nothing more then a witchhunt and moneymaker i don't care what anyone says whether your a SO or not this system is useless it doesn't help anyone!!

George W. Maschke wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 7:36pm:

George, Asperger Syndrome falls under the umbrella term "Autism Spectrum Disorder."

*Asd, Probation Officers use the polygraph as a 24 hour tail. I cannot see a judge revoking probation as a result of a stressed polygraph when the probationer suffers from such a disorder. 

George is merely saying that your concerns are moot as the polygraph is not scientific regardless of whether one suffers from ASD or not. I am not aware of any research conducted with the polygraph and ASD. 

However, some psychophysiological recording may help to study ASD. An interesting study in Finland is looking to see if a fearful expression may be misinterpreted as overly arousing or threatening. This study will use psychophysiological (skin conductance, heart rate, EEG) measurements to explore how children with ASD respond to exaggerated forms of direct eye gaze – either by demonstrating a fearful reaction or a defensive reaction.

George W. Maschke wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 7:36pm:

Sorry I was in a hurry and didnt even look at soelling. Thanks for that.
I know from reading that this person will fail. The original court order and doctors advice is that this person should not do these tests as a sure fail because of this persons disabilities. But if a test they would have to be aware of this persons disabilities etc..however the P.O. decided to follow through with doing them. 
I am concerned for this person. Disabilities such as what this person has is a new in the legal field and has had ground breaking results in the legal field. However many officers, lawyers, judges and so forth are not trained to understand these types of disabilities. Its been a mountain of climbing. Though I know they do not work at all, what rights does a person have once they are told they must take it? 
My concern is the abuse mentioned in other posts from theropists or P.Os if a test is failed towards this person with a brain disability. Just stimuli such as fast paced questions can set a tick of confusion. 
Concerned for this persons future and rights.

Quote:


Polygraphy doesn't work at all, even with people who don't have brain disorders. It's pseudoscience

Note the spelling of Asperger Syndrome.

How can a person with a neorological brain disorder and ASD have a fair test result? 
A person with ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) brains do not work like the average person. They twitch or clinch fingers, heart rates differently and also proccess speeds differ then the general/average person. 
If a person that has this is honest but has these type disabilities,  wouldnt their test results always show a non passing result?

EJohnson wrote on Dec 9^th, 2007 at 9:48pm:


You do realize that these statistics usually include non-sex crime offenses, the statistic is even lower for sex crime reoffenses.

Also you do realize that the sex offenders that are beyond hope are going to be the first to break probation, not care about violating their computer clause, and pass all their tests using countermeasures anyway? In turn for passing the test, the courts, probation officers and SOTP will make things easier for them. On the other hand committed to treatment sex offenders get the book thrown out them for being honest and failing. 

With that being said. I don't see how anyone thinks this is a good tool for SOTP.

Donna.Taylor wrote on Dec 9^th, 2007 at 8:07pm:


If this person has paid with their own money for their internet account, then they are legally entitled to use it.

The problem has always been with extreme economic libertarians who preach endlessly in the media about the rights of private ownership and big business to do whatever they want on and with their own property.  But, of course, all those who promulgate this rhetoric ultimately mean only to protect those with the most ownership and the most economic power. Their philosophy does absolutely nothing to help those who don't already have power and money and property to gain property.

Hence, all these conservatives and those who support them have NO right to complain about sex offenders or anyone shoving the same philosophies back into their faces.

If Comcast or Yahoo or whoever chooses not to allow this person use their services, then the worst that can be done is they can exercise THEIR property rights to ban this person from their services.

No judge or cop or court has the legal authority to interfere with this person's legal commerce and kidnap them and hold them hostage. That would be terrorism.

A vegan sex-offender who votes for Ralph Nader or Socialist is 100x better than a non-sex-offender religionist or social-conservative extreme-libertarian-economist who hypocritically eats meat.

Whether either type of person "passes" or "fails" a polygraph makes absolutely NO difference in the moral character of tht person.

I have no interest in helping ANY meat-eating Demopublicrat-voter who hypocritically preaches "responsibility" and "self-reliance" get medical treatment. I cheer when they have all their money and property taken away.

1 year in prison is much worse torture than anything anyone suffers on the outside.  I can say that objectively as a person who has not even been held hostage in prison yet nor been arrested.

T.M. Cullen wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 7:12pm:


Arrogance and ignorance combine in an exponential manner when creating character flaws in a person (or group of people).

Tyr,

I've been visiting this board for quite awhile.  The polygraphers I've met, both online and in the examination room are amongst the most arrogant people I've ever met.  They know more than the scientific community!  And if your reputation has been smeared by their bogus test, and voice your complaint, then your are just a ranting whiner who needs to "take your spanking and get on with your life".  Karma baby, karma.

You can review the posts of some of the more pathological polyliars on this board.  You might find it interesting and instructive as a professional in field of psychology.   They seem to think they know more than Phil Zimbardo, The National Academy of Sciences...etc.  Actually they don't, and they know they don't, but will still post for months in a vain attempt to defend polygraphy.  Then, they finally give up and resort to slandering the board owner accusing him of aiding terrorists and child molesters.

TC

The truth here is that it is the Polygraph folks are the ones who should be ashamed at putting the public at risk.  The fact is that the consensus among the scientific community is that the polygraph does not do what they claim it does.  The burden of proof is not on those that agree with the scientific consensus but rather on those that do not.  That is the bottom line no matter what is said.  So until the consensus changes via proven scientific means then all of your posts are no better than the homeopath trying to convince me that the pure sugar water will cure cancer.

And Ms. Taylor and Mr Johnson it appears you know little more than any normal layperson does about sex offenders.  For instance the term "sex offenders" covers a wide variety of criminal acts;  many of these "sex offenders" have no restrictions at all about the internet.  Not to mention the 4%-6% number quoted is also misleading.  4%-6% of what type of sex offender?  4%-6% of what type over what time span?  There are a few types of sex offenders that have over a 50% recidivism rate at 25 years post release.  Not to mention the fact that in most cases many victims never speak out and when they do it takes years (average in clergy sexual abuse cases was 12 years) to speak out.   

And as a licensed therapist who has assessed and treated high risk offenders I would never rely on a polygraph for anything other than an interrogation tool that it is.  And I could care less if the anti-poly or pro-poly crowd is the right one, what I care about is the truth whatever it may be.  Right now that truth has been and still is that the polygraph does not do what the pro-poly crowd claims.  If consensus changes then and only then would I consider it safe and ethical to use in some of the ways that it is currently being used.

You know what I find the most upsetting over this, is the complete ignorance in here that is exactly what the problem with america is. 

First off, not all sex offenders are raping little kids. 

Not ALL offenders are here to try to beat the system, but rather those who are desperate to find any positive information for someone in their situation and happen upon this site because of all the traffic and ridiculous petty arguements to the point where google reconizes the relevancy of the site and ranks it higher, therefor by all the polygraphers coming in here trying to so call "prevent" all of the sexual predators from violating conditions and reoffending, they are in fact helping the ones who are not good people and who are in fact looking to decieve their polygraph tests. So way to keep the engine going. Fantastic work. 

For those who comment on how disgusting all the offenders are, without knowing the exact case or person, just simply shows another aspect of the polygraph that is not scientific, it's called the human factor. Your hatred for sex offenders, and passion to put them further down and continued isolation, just shows how many of the unprofessional polygraphers can use their profession to give false reports to their p.o and/or therapist. For those who use their power illegally, for shame, and I can not wait for you to lose your career. 

As for internet access, further showing the ignorance of the people who post here. There are things called safety contracts, and there are things called individualized sentencing. Some have internet restrictions, some have alcohol and drug restrictions, some have no contact with any minor, some have no contact with a specific sex and/or age range. Some even with internet restriction are allowed to access the internet using software that prevents pornographic material or sites that allow contact to minors. Lastly, it's all up to the convicted, the therapist, and the probation officer, on what restrictions they have, don't have, will have, or had initially. 

Way to go everyone. Feel proud of how ignorant you are, nothing but fuel to the cause instead of using your education, passion, and anger to further prevention. I am disgusted to be an american.

You are a strange fellow orolan. You say that sex offenders in your state attend treatment for 6 months to 3 years----yet you in another thread claim to be attending treatment for 10 years.  Huh? 
Also, you claim to have passed all of your polygraphs yet lied on them all-----yet, you are soooooo angry at polygraph, you make George Maschke look like a Bhuddist. 
You spew venom and levy accusations of criminal fraud at examiners----who you accuse of being idiots.
 
So, in a nut shell, you are enraged by idiot polygraph examiners who pose no threat to your masterful yet incidental countermeasures with their ineffective test----and once more, you are intent on insulting and degrading them at every turn. You brilliant and ethical convicted child molester, me dumb and evil polygraph examiner trying to get your riches. Gotcha.

Hypothesis #1

You are a sex offender who lies about your polygraph experience----as your story is fishier than the the dumpster at Red Lobster. You have clearly exagerated your criminal mindedness/criminal uniqueness regarding your poly success----why would a self-proclaimed successful intrepid poly-beater person be so bombastic? It's not like you express any concern for children's safety by virtue of some perceived over-reliance on polygraph. No, you are plain angry. Is it the $300 from your "6 months to 3 yrs of polygraph tests" that ya want----oh wait, you were in high turnover groups for ten years---which suggests a prolonged period of supervision? Prolonged supervision is reserved for people who continually screw up (like Jester) or people who committed crimes that were especially heinous, like prolonged kidnapping with rape, or elements of torture or sexual abuse to infant children as part of your "greatest hits parade." No, I doubt your venom stems from the relative small monetary costs of polygraph. And what about those people who you so boldly accuse of wanting to test you repeatedly for sinister financial gain as you contend? I suspect that that examiner(s) probably would've rather seen you finish your term in prison than recieve your $100 + 3hr whine-inducing headache + report and subsequent report dispatch and/or phone calls-----2 to 3 times a year. You and your story is a hot mess. Wise cracks with no wisdom.

Hypothesis #2  

see hypothesis #1 and add lemon juice

 

Quote:

I need a better explanation for that one. How can two questions scored NDI based on the response level as defined by the control questions suddenly be scored as DI because the third question garnered a DI score based on it's response level again as defined by the control questions?
Quote:

Well Mr. IDon'tLikeIt, who gives a horse's a** about your useless opinions?
Quote:

Truly sad. You read suspects' statements and decide if they're being truthful? And yet your ability to spell and construct proper sentences looks like something a 6th-grader would be ashamed of. I bet your Sergeant truly hates reading your reports
Quote:

Are we all supposed to somehow be impressed by that? I'm certainly not. Just means you can't get a real job.
Quote:

Maybe he shouldn't be. But last time I looked this board fit neither description.
Quote:

Notice you fail to include a number for those states. I personally know several hundred sex offenders on parole who are allowed on the Internet. They naturally are subject to random searches of their computer to see where they've been. They have other restrictions (against contact with minors for example) that apply at the grocery store, their front yard, and of course the Internet. That's all the PO needs. There are no minors here as far as I know.
Quote:

Your complete and utter arrogance is mind-boggling. Probation and parole conditions are not finite entities. They're defined by sentencing courts and parole boards, often on a case-by-case basis. I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't more narcissistic than you claim the sex offenders are.
Quote:

And now you're saying that because he Googled "polygraph question" he obviously must be frequenting kids chat rooms and kiddie-porn trading forums as well? Thats some pretty stretched-out logic.
Quote:

Why not, Ms. Taylor? I'm here. Was here years ago while on supervision too (BTW my PO had FULL knowledge of my presence here and had no problem with it at all. Go figure.) I didn't come here because I failed a poly or wanted t olearn how to pass one. I came here to tell my story of how I thoroughly debunked your idiotic "protect the children" test. BEFORE I ever heard about this site or read George's book. Bo countermeasures for me. Just the truth, ma'am. But the "truth" was not the tangible thing the examiner thought it was, now was it. Turns out I lied on the entire exam and he believed every word. Why? Because like you, he does it to line his pockets. He does it because the laws have basically taken away his ability to earn a living since the poly has limited usages in the private sector these days. I see no reason to believe your reasons are any different. Answer me this. If you didn't do PSOT, what WOULD you do?
Quote:

Same drivel, different examiner. If what George offers here is useless and the guilty offender will fail anyway, how can you say he is helping them? Shouldn't you say he is hurting them?
Quote:

Hunter, do you believe in free speech? Freedom of religion? Son of a gun. I thought so. Me too. So it's a proud day for you, because sex offenders agree with you about Constitutional rights
Quote:

UnderJustice came here AFTER having his finding of truthfulness reversed to deception without valid reason. So how can you blame this site for that?
Quote:
 
You're as arrogant as that other clown. Must run in the polygraph examiner family. I spent TEN YEARS on supervision and never once did my PO have a problem with me frequenting this forum.
Quote:

Why? This isn't an "Internet chat room". And you have no reason to believe he has been in any chat rooms. But what you DO know is that if you sit here and sow seeds of doubt into his head as to whether or not this is a chat room or a bulletin board, he'll be nervous and confused at that next examination as to how he should answer. Thus giving your colleague an opportunity to say he was deceptive or inconclusive and thus keep him coming back for more examinations. 
Quote:

And that statement Sarge speaks volumes about you and your integrity. My hat is off to you. Some may say "look, the sex offenders even like you". I'll nip that in the bud right here by saying that I don't know Sarge. And no doubt we have differing opinions on many things. But I do RESPECT him for those opinions and the way he conducts himself.
Quote:

All sex offenders in most states? Or most sex offenders in all states? Or some sex offenders in some states? Your arrogance is showing again. For one thing there is a difference between "sex offender" and "sex offender on state or Federal supervision". The former have no such requirement. For another, most states require polygraphs "as a part of the treatment program". When treatment is finished, so are the polygraphs. In my state a treatment program for an offender runs anywhere between 6 months and 3 years. Some offenders are never in it long enough to even get a polygraph because they're annual. There are thousands of sex offenders on state supervision in my state that haven't seen a polygraph in 5+ years. Funny thing. Even though they are deprived of that invaluable toll to keep them offense-free, 97% of those offenders are somehow doing exactly that. Remaining offense-free. Go figure.
Quote:

Yeah, Kim and her two-state study of less than 200 offenders that does not definitively say the polygraph is responsible for the lower rate. Matter of fact, the study shows little if any difference between the two states using the poly and the 3rd "control" state that did not. For example you can split hairs and say that 5 out of 60 is "better" than 5 out of 70 but when you get down to it that's a statistically insignificant difference.
Gotta go. I grow weary of the garbage spewed around here by narcissistic polygraph examiners

Alrighty... 
Look Under- The original part of the post is who lying. 
The answer after careful consideration to your posts, and your history (ie: convicted felon), the liar would be yourself sir. 
Including myself, I think other's here whether there pro/anti polygraph can come up with this conclusion. I've posted earlier my reasoning for this conclusion. It's the way your posting, and explaining yourself. Obviously, there is a serious amount of thinking going on with your posts like the bracketing. I'm sure with a basic interview any leo/polygrapher/parole officer wouldn't need a polygraph to catch you in deceptive traits whether it'd be through NVI, or having you write down a formal statement. I've highlighted examples on a previous post. Please if your a LEO, interviewer, polygrapher prove me wrong. I value the fact, that I'm not perfect.

Nomegusto, I can't help but think that for some reason Underjustice is suffering from so much tension he cannot use proper tense. I futher find his post a bit [overbracketed]...  (parenthetically speaking)

Never the less I think if we give him a sufficient opportunity to organize and reflect upon his thoughts before posting we may indeed learn what he is trying to say.

Sancho Panza
Eternal Optimist

Posted by: Underjustice Posted on: Today at 1:22am 
noMegusto,
I am not asking you to care about me.  That's a fact.  It's obvious, "[I am] not looking for an avenue to make sure [I] pass [my] poly", and
in your confuse analyze do "[you]  believe in SOs are not able to change [or] some are able to control their desires"...such a confuse analyzer.

And yes, I too have "seen, know first hand the harm, and pain [my] desires has caused others".  However, your interview along with your pc (paleolithic cranium) could not even analyze your own confuse scoring subject(s) some can't and some can control their desires.

Therefore, I stand by your reason "to give [me] the benefit of doubt" to telling about the decitful "analyzers [who are] having different codes on scoring a subject" who truthfulness are facing demons and consequences base on a poly's lie....analyze this score. 
--


I'm not even gonna decipher this last post. I don't understand gibberish... 

noMegusto,
I am not asking you to care about me.  That's a fact.  It's obvious, "[I am] not looking for an avenue to make sure [I] pass [my] poly", and
in your confuse analyze do "[you]  believe in SOs are not able to change [or] some are able to control their desires"...such a confuse analyzer.

And yes, I too have "seen, know first hand the harm, and pain [my] desires has caused others".  However, your interview along with your pc (paleolithic cranium) could not even analyze your own confuse scoring subject(s) some can't and some can control their desires.

Therefore, I stand by your reason "to give [me] the benefit of doubt" to telling about the decitful "analyzers [who are] having different codes on scoring a subject" who truthfulness are facing demons and consequences base on a poly's lie....analyze this score.

     

Underjustice you wrote this yesterday...
Quote 
"Posted by: Underjustice Posted on: Yesterday at 3:29am 
Your hateful towards SO is right, Nonegusto, to give me the benefit of doubt.  I am not "here to figure out a way to beat the polygraph for [my] personal reason."  I am here to tell about the hateful and deceitful situation some truthful SO are facing in their so-called treatment with polys.  Also, I have face my demons long ago and the consequences of my acation; however, it is this kind of hateful and deceiftful attitude which keep me away from little kids.
D. Taylor, you mind me of some of the "polygraphers cerfified in sex offender testing" in telling the truth "you are not here to help [me] pass this test, instead of, "I am here to help you pass the test and not here to see you fail."  As the polygrapher told me during my polys.  In other words, the polygrapher was actully saying the same thing you are saying.

EJohnson, you wold love to keep a SO off this kind of forum who does not visit pornography and sexual chat room, instead, is the SO first time chatting on anykind of forum to grivevance his experience to the deceitful [color=#ff0000]polygrphers like the like of D.Taylor and you.   However, if this forum has minors chatting on here than I will be the first to leave with no returen whatsoever because I do not lack the recognition of my parole rules which I do not deny, but to deny me no kind of forum to grievance my injustice - "data is data".

George, you are right about polygraphs and polygraphers lying because I have not [fell] in the "4-6% category of actually sexually reoffending after [my] conviction."  As a matter of fact, I have been release for awhile.  However, the polygrapher's deception in trying to get me to admit to "actually sexually reoffending" when the polygraphers knew that the two question I did not show deception on was "stay away form little kids".  Therefore, I have not manipulated but [/color]have been manipulating [color=#ff0000]beliving that I have done something when in fact it is being done to me.  As D. Taylor said, "unfortunate fact is the honest will probably fail as well... Is polygraph is 100% accurate? No...It is a phenomenal tool to assist the overwhelmed therapists and parole officers" to sent honest SO back to prison on a lie.

So George, keep telling the truth about those who are really actully deceiving some "honest " SO.      

Respectfully submitted
     Underjustice   
End Quote"

Ok, just so you know... It's noMegusto, not noNegust... 
I don't care about you. That's a fact. It's obvious, your looking for an avenue to make sure you pass your poly. Been there done that, however I was fortunate to get more information then this website, for very different reason's. That said. I don't believe in SO's(specifically child predators ) are able to change their desires. I again have my reason's. I'm sure some are able to control their desires. Bueno, esta bien. But, I've seen, and know first hand the harm, and pain your desires has caused on other's. As I've stated I'm not a polygrapher, however I do interview, and le questioning (pc word for interrogations). I've read and analyzed countless statements. I watch programming. It's easier to detect a lie (without the use of a polygraph), it's harder to get the suspect to admit to it. Your posts (please a polygrapher here, or someone else known to written analyzation prove me otherwise) lead me to believe again your being deceitful. I highlighted some of my reasoning for it. 
Wow, this topic has exploded. I was enjoying a much needed break yesterday. 
The highlights are not perfect, and I've changed some ways of scoring, so not to give possible suspects, or convicted criminals, an oppurtunity to figure out how to score. However, different analyzers, have different codes on scoring a subject... Hope your not too confused....

EJohnson wrote on Dec 11^th, 2007 at 2:17pm:


allow me to paraphrase
Now how can we argue with that? I think we are all indebted to UJ here for clearly stating what had to be said. And I'm glad the children were here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish...but it expressed a courage that is little seen in this day and age. - Olsen Johnson  Blazing Saddles

Sancho Panza

Underjustice wrote on Dec 11^th, 2007 at 6:34am:


Could we get a translator in here? I don't understand what this person is saying.

D.Taylor
I have talk to my PO and therapist concerning my full cycle; however, I can tell now that you are not able to go the full cycle who lying.   

Nevertheless, I appreicate your thoughtfulness of SO and your make believe tools to punish those SO who are compliance with their Tx by bring whats happen in the lab to the public interest.  This SO will not be silent.

EJohnson wrote on Dec 10^th, 2007 at 6:38pm:


I don’t think I have ever counseled anyone to use countermeasures.  I have said that I don’t believe answer questions truthfully and then doing math in your head is unethical, and I still believe that.  Answering questions truthfully fulfills my ethical responsibility.  What I think is no one’s affair but my own.

Is it truly that difficult for you and your ilk to believe that a person of ethics and conscience can disagree with you about the accuracy and worth of the polygraph and yet not be a supporter of child molesters and liars?

If you look at my past posts you will see that I always counsel people to tell the truth on their polygraphs and on their applications.  I don’t recall ever counseling anyone to lie, and I don’t recall ever counseling anyone to use countermeasures.

My opinion, based on my past experiences and the research I have done, is that the polygraph is simply inadequate as a detector of deception.  I post my opinion on this board, as well as on others, and I don’t believe that by doing so I am engaging in any sort of unethical behavior.

Do you believe that it would be more ethical of me to remain silent about a process I know, though personal experience, to be inaccurate and worse than worthless?  That it would somehow indicate higher morals or a greater sense of honor if I only spoke out in support of whatever issues the majority agreed with, instead of speaking my mind?  Because some of my brother and sisters in law enforcement believe in the worth of the polygraph, it is unethical for me to voice my opinion in opposition of theirs?

You are barking up the wrong tree here.  I don’t think you can find anything in any of my posts to indicate a lack of ethics or a support of liars.  There is certainly nothing that indicates a tolerance for, much less support of, sex offenders.  

On the other hand, in many posts authored by your and your comrades what is clearly transmitted to the readers is that you seek to vilify, to the detriment of your own credibility, anyone that disagrees with your opinion.  I don't see a great deal of ethics in that.

So EJ doesn't have time for lunacy, huh?  Any have time for science?  You don'thave to answer that.
This entire discussion reminds me of another pseodoscientific application of a sexual behaviour theory, the plethysmograph.
Check out http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/plethysmograph.html

Underjustice wrote on Dec 11^th, 2007 at 12:22am:


Please go talk to your PO or therapist before you are in full cycle.

Underjustice wrote on Dec 11^th, 2007 at 12:22am:

Eloquently stated


Sancho Panza