Dang 2block,

there you go again; agreeing with me.

I invite Cat to post ALL information concerning this issue, if in fact she/he wants accurate information and feedback concerning the issue.

Sackett

sackett

Again I'll agree that most parole officers act within their authority (that authority stands only within the court order) but, the fact remains that there are rogue PO's just like there are rogue cops. These rogues should be removed along with those who practice the "code of silence". Hell, that could wipe out half of the department. Probably more.

If cat would furnish us more information the advise could be stronger or go away altogether. If cat's friend copped a plea and the sentence included SO treatment and the treatment didn't happen in prison, then a lawyer would be a waste of money.

As for me coming around - NAH. When facts are presented to me and I know they are undisputable, I will offer no argument. I'm not a total hardass. However, I have won inter-college debates when the undisputable facts were against me and my opposition was pre-law. I was taking acting classes at the time. Ronny (may he RIP) proved that actors can beat lawyers. So be careful what you throw at me.

2block,

I don't diagree with obtaining an attorney to find out what's what.  I did note that cat states her friend was "not convicted of a sexual offense."  This leaves the door open for many interpretations.

If, for example, sex offender conditions apply, then court action is the only way to remove it.  A parole officer (usually) only acts within their authority; not because a therapist thinks it's a good idea...

Sackett

P.S.  Regarding you agreeing with me.  Could it be, dare I say, YOU are the one coming around? 

sackett

I agree with your scenario. (I don't like this. I'm agreeing with you too much lately) This has happened in the past and will happen in the future. However, in the case of this string, there has been no mention of a plea deal that I remember. Based on what I've read I'll have to stand by my advise. Get a lawyer. Over time it wouldn't cost any more than possible illegal treatment costs.

2block,

I understand your point and (I believe your meaning); however, let me explain how this can happen.

Let's say Mr Smith is charged with Open and Gross Lewdness for masturbating in public.  In court, his attorney pleas a deal to disorderly conduct but the prosecutor wants sex offender conditions and upon completion of therapy and probation, all charges dropped.  Mr Smith accepts.  Now he is convicted for D/C and is a convicted sex offender.  This is how it sometimes happens.

Sackett

sackett

I agree with your last sentance. That's why I strongly suggest a lawyer. However, cat said the parole board dismissed the sex "allegation" which tells me a sex crime was alledged but never prosecuted because there was no sex conviction. Without a conviction to a charge, a judge can't legally apply punishment for that charge no matter what state he's in. I believe any appellate court, especially federal appellate courts if it gets that far, would kick it out without a hearing. He/she was sent back because of falling off the wagon. I fail to see how falling off the wagon could be sexually motivated. An extremely puntitive mind might apply it, but doesn't make it so. I am not advocating lightening the load of a convicted SO either.

We both only can go by what we read.

Twoblock,

that is not entirely true.  In some states (like mine - NV) you can be convicted of a non-sexual offense (though the originally charged offense was sexually motivated) and have sex offender conditions applied by the court (plea agreement stuff).  Thus, polygraph and sex offender therapy could in fact play a part in his/her supervision.  

The offender would have to check his parole/probation conditions as applied from the court to know if those specific conditions apply.

Sackett

cat

I say again. He needs to talk to a lawyer. If he has never been convicted of a sex crime, he CANNOT legally be forced into a SO program. Sounds like the PO and the treatment provider have a monitary deal going. For the life of me, I can't see how anyone who is innocent would take this crap and not defend themselves. The whole program is open to this scam. They are not monitored by any state agencies to my knowledge. Of coarse, "roll over and play dead and you'll get dirt thrown in your face every time".

I need to specify:  The thearpist recommended the PO order the polygragh before even administering any kind of sexual evaluation.

Thank you digithead and two block for all the input. I wrote in more detail about the situation under new topics. I hope it showed up. 
Oh, by the way, this is taking place in TX.  I guess the thing that upsets me so much is the fact that a polygraph can be used on some who went to prison for drunk driving, did his time, got out on parole, had a relapse with a small incident.  Anyway, he is being treated as an SO, was never convicted, was ordered a polygragh by a therapist, even before being evaluted.  Mind you, he never denied anything. He was so upset with polygraghers behavior, and with the preceeding events knew before hand he was going to fail.  I asked him if could hire an independent person to administer the test, but he didn't know. He tells me all the time " I should've just stayed in prison".  " I never should have went to that BBQ".   

Also, it was nearly a year before they gave him the test.  Now, it cost him 200.00 for the test.  There were several other people also waiting to test while we were there.  Now, he has to go to sex therapy classed that cost 35.00 a week, travel 45miles, with the cost of gas that's another 40 bucks.  I am beginning to wonder if it is some kind of money maker for the state or if they need a certain number of people in these programs to keep them viable.   

Even worse, his fellow "Group Mates" don't know why he is there, and on some strange level, this upsets them.  Maybe it's a matter of "it takes one to know one" kind of thing.   

This all went before the parole board a little over a year ago, they dismissed the sexual allegations and sent him to ISF for 7 months for falling off the wagon. (He remains acohol free to this day) Personally, I believe his PO is a bit of a zealot. She's new to this field and worked for child protective services, cause for bias.  I've tried going up the chain of command, but that was futile.   

Now he's going to be up for a "maintence polygragh".  He is convinced it is all set up to make people fail. He thinks he should save his 200.00 because " they'll send me back to prison if I fail anyway". And this ends up costing the taxpayer.

It's a real shame that one person like a PO can have absolute control over a persons life.  Making people feel hopeless, doesn't help them.

Twoblock wrote on May 14^th, 2008 at 12:55am:


At the federal level, parole was eliminated in 1984 and they are under what is considered mandatory supervised release. It actually is more stringent than parole...

As for correctional officers and community officers - from my experience working in two state agencies - most know exactly what their jobs are and most do their jobs well. The system itself keeps removing discretion from police, prosecutors, judges and corrections staff. And while a few are overzealous, I think the system prevents them from exercising their professional judgement and offenders get squeezed...

As for SO recidivism, it's not as low as some have claimed but it all depends on which population of SO's one is looking at. Child porn guys and voyeurs rarely recidivate; SO's with multiple victims and crossover offenses recidivate at a higher rate than all other offenders. Also, all SO's that take part in cognitive behavioral therapy have a much lower rate than other SO's...

As for the polygraph with SO's, it has been much ballyhooed as a way to get offenders to admit to more offenses and victims. However, research has shown that this same effect with offenders occurs using a bogus pipeline so it's not the polygraph per se but the belief that polygraph works that gets offenders to admit to things. How long do you think that utility will last? 

Anyhow, I guess we finally derailed this thread on the polygrapher with a serious case of Trichophyton rubrum...

digithead

I know little to nothing about community supervision. My interest has been at the federal level.

Years ago I read an article by a federal judge, 9th. circuit I believe, that illustrated, in part, the truth about prisons and post-prison supervision. He said that "prison guards and supervisors and probation and parole officers have the mistaken belief that it is part of their job to inflict punishment on prisoners and parolees. This is totally wrong thinking. Thier job is to ensure order and compliance only. Judges and juries inflict the punishment by sending the guilty to prison. Just being in prison and on probation and parole is the only punishment intended by the courts".

I don't know if the polygraph is effictive on SOs or not. I do know that it is the lowest recidivism rate of the major crimes. Those statistics are not hard to come by. Polygraphers will probably say they are the reason recidivism is so low. From the interviews I have seen and read, the vast majority of SOs will stay on the straight and narrow because 1. They don't want to go back the verbal and physical abuse of fellow inmates. 2. They give a lot of credit to their treatment providers teaching them the proper boundries. Then there are the addicted ones that prison is the only answer.

Twoblock wrote on May 13^th, 2008 at 9:11pm:


Mandatory post-release supervision set by state law is not the same as parole. Parole is something that an offender earns through good behavior while incarcerated. Mandatory release supervision is not earned, hence it is a different form of community supervision.

Community correctional status is defined by who holds jurisdiction over the offender. If it's probation then the court has it. If it's parole then the parole board has it. If it's mandatory release supervision, then it's usually the DOC but not all states are the same with this. This can be confusing because some states have gotten rid of parole boards altogether in favor of mandatory release supervision. People euphemistically call this parole but it is not the same thing.

Additionally, not all states have sentencing guidelines so one cannot say that there are specific constitutional guarantees with regard to the polygraph when an offender is supervised in the community. Also, most correctional agencies are given very wide latitude on what they can impose for supervision guidelines, the polygraph being one of them. Some states, like Colorado for instance, are beginning to widen the use of post-conviction polygraph testing beyond sex offenders to domestic violence cases.

So I would not assume that someone who is on community supervision would be free from having to take a polygraph. He or she may have legal recourse but it's doubtful as most cases I've seen regarding post-conviction use of the polygraph have been in favor of community corrections rather than the offender.

Interestingly, the expansion of the polygraph into post-conviction use really began after the 1988 act banning its use in most employment situations. Most people don't really care about offenders so it's not surprising that polygraphers have been successful in widening its use in this arena. However, new research is showing for sex offenders that PCSOT polygraph has no effect on recidivism...

Eventually, science will weed its use out of law enforcement; it's just going to take some time because of it's entrenchment...

digithead

If a convict has served his total time, then parole is not a privilege. It's a constitutional right. (Constitutional law is very interesting. That's where the rubber meets the road). If the sentancing judge ordered time on parole and included polygraphs, he has to take them. Parole officers has to follow the sentancing guidelines. They cannot legally make up their own laws. If he is realeased early by the parole board, then I agree the board can set guidelines which includes polygraphs. I have read where POs have been set back on their heels by the courts concerning their behavior. Most always, a drug offender is required to give UA samples for a specified time by the court but few are required to take polys. I have a distant relative that's a PO and he says that none of his drug parolees are required to take polys. That was a couple of years ago, however.

Twoblock wrote on May 13^th, 2008 at 4:55pm:


If he's on parole then there typically is no judge or court involved. Parole is a privilege and parolees are subject to whatever the parole officer and parole board deem necessary within certain legal boundaries. A parolee - regardless of whether they are a sex offender or not - can be made to take a polygraph by a parole officer or a parole board. Offenders have very little if any recourse while they are on parole unless the parole officer violates the law...

cat

He needs to check with a lawyer. I don't know what state in which you live, but I don't believe a polygraph can be required except for SO's. You said he has not been convicted of a sex offense. A PO cannot make his own rules. If polygraphs were not a part of his parole ordered by a judge, then he can't be required to take one. He may have cause for a lawsuit himself.

I believe this is a major cause for conern.  A friend of mine had a lie detector test (ordered by his parole officer) . The person giving the test, was talking of sexual offenses from another case which upset my friend and he failed his test. As a result, he was given the specail condition "X" applied to his parole.  Mind you, his has never been convicted of a sexual offense.  He has had numerous DWI's that's what landed him in prison.  What's bad is when you are on parole, you can be treated how ever they please, including making you take lie detector tests given by  people of THEIR choosing.  If there's a way to charge that person who administered your test with sexual harassment, I say go for it.

T.M. Cullen wrote on May 7^th, 2008 at 1:20am:


Cullen,

you clearly have issues that a good psychiatrist MIGHT be able to address...

Sackett

Speaking of inappropriate behavior by polygaphers.  What about those two-way mirrors?

I can only imagine the unseemly behavior taking place "behind the mirror" by male poly-perves when a good looking female applicant is being "processed"!

Maybe this partially explains what it going on when they leave the exam room for extended periods.   

TC

Did anyone consider that maybe the guy has the crabs?  A little soap and hot water will clean that right up.

this sucks. i hate that this is what happened after i put all my faith in the process and the examiner. i knew i would get grilled, but never expected this. my advice to the female examinee lurkers - say something during the interview instead of waiting like me (feel free to post suggested replies to such a situation). to the male examiners lurking - please find another way to make your female examinees uncomfortable. ugh.

I don't think all examiners are bad - I just happened to be unlucky.

I don't want to say too much more about my situation, but at least i've found something the examiners and "antis" can agree on

I'll definitely say something to my contact after I pass a rough draft by a friend; I'm not the type to not do something about this. I just really don't want to deal with an IA investigation, and I have no interest in a lawsuit.

thanks for all the advice people

neko6 wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 9:33pm:


This obviously has you very concerned, apparently.  And rightfully so.
 
Repercussions:  Officially, no.  Realistically, I have no idea because I don’t know the agency or the personalities involved.  If you make a complaint to the agency, the Internal Affairs (IA) Office will probably investigate the allegation.  Your name would be in that file, but IA files are generally pretty secure files.  Sexual harassment in the workplace allegations are (or should be) taken seriously.  You have a female point of contact at the agency already.  Why not talk to her?  But remember, she is a member of that agency and will have to report what you say (at least she should).  You are in a situation where you have to do the right thing.  Either the examiner does not realize he is doing what you claim, or he is doing it on purpose.  In any event, it needs to stop.  And you are in a position to do something about it.  If one of my subordinates was doing something inappropriate, I would want to know.  Do you know if you are still being considered for employment?  Did you pass your polygraph test?  I hope you did pass and are still being considered.  If you did not pass, and are not being considered, the longer you wait the more it will appear that you are, in your words, a malcontent.

neko6

I agree with Sackett. If you report it now and the dude fails you, you can counter with "his improper actions upset you", which is likely, and caused you to fail. This will probably get you retested with a different polygrapher. If you pass and the department doesn't hire you, then that's cause for both internal and external investigations. I would head straight for the news media. As I alway say "roll over and play dead and you get dirt thrown in your face". You should do every thing in your power to remove this guy so other females won't have to endure what you did.

There is no way to know; unless you're related to the chief.

Now I'm truly guessing here, but I think every female who was subjected to the same treatment will respect you and most guys will laugh at the whole thing (with the exception of the management who will have to deal with it somehow).

As for your file. If hired, no-one can say for sure how or even if it will effect your file/job folders, etc.  BUT, you must do something now!  Do not wait until later, else if not offered a position, it will appear to be sour grapes and summarily dissmissed.  

Sackett

What I'm really trying to get at here is, realistically, what kind of repercussions am I looking at if I do say something?

Would this be part of my "file" with the agency I applied to? Would I probably be labeled a malcontent if not passing and be blacklisted from other government jobs?

If he didn't know he was doing it and I said something to my app coordinator, then my career is over before it even began for absolutely no reason whatsoever.