Randall,

I agree with Animal's comment above that you need the advice of an attorney with experience in such matters. I am not one. However, you'll be interested in a 2016 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit that a convicted sex offender in a post-conviction polygraph program cannot be compelled to answer questions about his sexual history that could tend to incriminate him:

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2016/05/15/federal-appeals-court-rules-certain-ma...

This ruling is not binding in Texas, which is under the 5th Circuit, but the facts and arguments that led to this ruling will no doubt be of relevance for others in similar situations.

You need the advice of an attorney with experience in these types of cases. Treatment providers claim that recovery cannot occur unless all past deviant behaviors have been illuminated. But others would be more in favor of your incarceration. Absent some kind of legal agreement with prosecutors, you could be in jeopardy for any admissions of crimes. Even if the criminal statute of limitations have passed, there could be civil litigation. Your other alternative is try to beat the test; the ethic of this strategy I'll leave to others to hash over.

I am currently on parole for two convictions of Aggravated Sexual Assault, child under 14. In the state of Texas. One occurred in 1986, the other in 1987. I am not guilty of the alleged offense of 1987. However, I recently failed a instant case polygraph regarding this allegation. After serving 22yr's, I was released under mandatory supervision in 2009. Since that time I have taken and passed several maintenance polygraphs. And underwent counselling. Was released from counselling (Dallas County) approx. 2012. And was placed on yearly maintenance. In 2016 I moved from Dallas Co. To Henderson Co. Texas. In 2017 I was required to take my yearly Maintenance polygraph. This examine consisted solely of questions concerning Alcohol/Drug use. No questions concerning my sexual conduct since my previous polygraph. Which I find unusual because that's the purpose of the maintenance polygraph. I failed this polygraph due to alcohol use. ( Drinking wine to help me sleep nights). Because of this I was placed back into sex offender treatment. Which I strongly opposed, to no avail. Due to the conduct of SOTP provider I was placed under. I filed a grievance against her with the Counsel of Sex Offender Treatment. Due to this grievance I was removed from her class in 2017. Am currently attending a weekly class under a second SOTP. Time for my yearly maintenance polygraph is at hand. However, I am currently being forced to take a sexual history polygraph. Which has never been required. I fear this polygraph because I am being forced to disclose information concerning my previous sexual conduct during my entire life span and I am 59yr's old. My fear is that some of my previous sexual history, if disclosed, could be used against me even though statue of limitations has expired and no other complaints have occurred. My question, at this point is, is this legal? Is it legal to be forced to disclose information concerning my past offences that were never brought to light. And in my opinion, should stay way.

Ex Member wrote on Nov 28^th, 2016 at 5:15pm:


Ironically, it is this state of perpetual stagnation that enables the polygraph indu$try to keep riding the gravy train. As long as there are ample believers in pro-polygraph dogma, the cult-like attraction will continue. For the polygraph indu$try, ignorance is bli$$.

Has Ray done something to wrong you in a past life?

Dan, research is a worthwhile endeavor. The problem is that we are reaching the asymptote on CQT laboratory research. University research, while sporting firm ground truth, totally lacks ecological validity. Most of the participants are airhead undergrads whose only real concern in life is why so many people unfriended them on Facebook. Juxtaposed with someone facing prison time, the ecological validity of laboratory research is sanguine at best. I suppose it's theoretically possible to enhance ecological validity in the lab (imposing imprisonment on participants), but you would then become a villain from a Batman movie.

On the flip side, establishing ground truth in the field is severely challenging; depending on confessions or convictions does not cut it, especially since one cannot know of the false negative examinees who were never subjected to post test interrogation.

If there is ever to be any movement on the CQT, establishing confident levels of ground truth in field studies is paramount--anything short of that is to continue the dance that has been going on for a half a century.

CIT research is very rich and ongoing and has expanded to Event Related Potentials, especially the P300 wave and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging work with neural imaging. Although still relatively nascent, the only field data thus far is from Japan and fragments from Israel, so the same challenges lie ahead.

Evidently, Joe, one needs exactly that.

Here's a line item from the APA web site's description of member benefits:

Access to the Research Center, its progressive research, and its publications in areas of techniques, validity, scientific issues, current practices, assessments, surveys of attitudes and problems facing the polygraph profession, where its publications and papers have been presented at APA seminars as well as at other criminal justice and related conferences

Research Center? Really? Does the APA let just any member analyze the research data, look at the sourcing of same, and study their proprietary cookbooks? 

Somehow I doubt it, but I'll ask for unfettered access anyway.

Hey, I wonder where the APA's "Research Center" is.... Is it at the headquarters in Chattanooga? Does it exist in the cloud? Is it on Ray Nelson's laptop? Hmmmm....

Maybe an APA researcher will chime in. They follow this forum like bored housewives follow soap operas.

I didn't get the memo on the"super secret facility."  What gives?  Do I need a special ring and grip for this information?

Thanks, Ark.

Sounds like a-priori probability research findings ginned up by like-minded polygraph advocates -- the same cabal that  programs the indu$try's magical Monte Carlo modeling centrifuge in their super secret statistical alchemy facility -- is just another SWAG: a Scientific Wild-Ass Guess.

Double, double toil and trouble;
    Fire burn, and caldron bubble...

Sorry for the late reply Dan, I'm traveling a lot these days. I do not think the article would have much utility for the practitioner. For the practitioner/researcher, a-priori probability can influence a researcher's beliefs about something before looking at any data. For example, you could procure data from a 'scientist' who is 90% sure that a parameter lies between a certain interval and gradually narrow the interval to form a prior distribution as is oft employed in Bayesian statistics, where the posterior distribution is a weighted sum of the likelihood and the prior. Assuming you have good reason to believe your 'scientist', you can then assign heavier weights to the prior.

Ark, I'm not asking for a detailed write-up -- just a realty check.

Here's a siimple question for you: Does the aforementioned article advance the case for polygraph "testing" in a significantly meaningful way?

A simple yes or no will do.

Sorry, but I am a little too busy to write detailed comments about simple a-priori certainty estimations. I would suggest reading up on Jacob Bernoulli.

Sure, Ark, whatever you say.

In other news, have you seen the latest APA magazine? I'd like to know what you think of the article "Five Minute Science Lesson: 
Prior Probabilities and the Algebra To Calculate ‘Em", authored by Ray Nelson.

We (the polygraph community) look forward to your observations and commentary.

Poor fellow has so many "shades of gray everywhere"; I thought a dichotomy would provide some relief.

Ark, it's been a while.   

Please explain your most recent comment:

"If it had been my daughter, your "client" would be pushing up daisies."

Are you describing a so-called honor killing? People are wondering.

Ex Member wrote on Oct 20^th, 2016 at 1:49am:


Ark, are you saying that you would murder the aforementioned "client" -- or arrange for that individual's killing -- if said person grabbed your daughter's ass?

Please clarify your statement.

Ex Member wrote on Oct 20^th, 2016 at 1:49am:


Without knowing the age of the parties, the level of or lack of consent, or any other details?

It is technically construed as rape when a man has sex - consensual sex - with an intoxicated woman. Even when the man is also intoxicated. Even when the woman is the instigator, and says so.

In this situation, wouldn't he guy also be pushing up daisies?

The point I'm illustrating is this: victimization is in the eye of the beholder. What if your daughter consented? What if she asked for that contact to happen? You can't stand up for ' victims' blindly when 'victims' don't even want to be stood up for. It is complete nonsense

Quote:


If it had been my daughter, your "client" would be pushing up daisies.

Ex Member wrote on Jun 24^th, 2016 at 8:43pm:


So what you are saying is that a victim of any action absolutely has to make as big a deal out of it as you think they should? I have a client who grabbed a girl's butt. The girl thinks nothing of it... but my client went to prison for it. The girl made no victim witness statement, no statement in court, refused counseling.... the victim leads a successful life filled with great personal relationships, and has moved on - so if the act is not meaningful to the victim, why is it so meaningful to you that it absolutely has to have meaning?
Factors such as perpetrator relation to the victim, the act committed, the age of the victim,  how many times the act(s) were repeated (if at all) and other factors mitigate or aggravate how 'victimized' a sexual assault victim feels.. and that's not even counting how the victim feels about it on a personal level, based on their personal disposition.

Apples and oranges, remember? And just because you believe things occur in a certain way does not mean that they, in fact, do. Real life proves otherwise. Shades of gray everywhere.

americanslave, 
So those who attempt to have victim empathy are the ones who abuse you? Perhaps you love your perpetrator so much that you have to hold others accountable.

A few pages back, Ark replies:

Quote:
Butt grabbing and vaginal penetration? Apples and oranges.

Not to the victim. 

So you speak for the victim?  Who gave you that authority?  I'm a victim of sexual molestation when I was a child, and you do not speak for me in any way shape or form.  Nor am I victim because YOU say so.  That is my choice and never will be any one else's.  Because of asshats like you I suffered immeasurably as a result of what people like you think I needed thanks to your projected trauma on me as a young child.  You want to know who hurt me more?  People like you.  Your cognitive distortions are tantamount to your mental crappity smackery.

Dan Mangan wrote on May 8^th, 2016 at 1:00am:



Dan, I said it became a money maker.  I do not think, and call me silly for having a lingering belief in the good intentions of humanity (hanging on by a thread), I don't think it started that way.   

It is a good management tool, and believe in the test so much, I bet my future on it.   

I believe it still can be the good thing it was intended to be and everyone can still make a living, offering a fair test, at a fair price.  That is capitalism right?   

The establishment in Texas hates capitalism.  Texas runs, (words of Don Ramsey before I opened my doors) on a fiefdom system.  Sorry TAPE, not my words.  And for a period of time, he was a victim to that system.  He is a better man than I will ever be in many ways though.  One of the many things I wish would have rubbed off on me was his infinite patients.  It seemed that nothing ever bothered that man outwardly.   

I am trying to get there with a gavel and chisel, but there is a lot of stone to clear.   

Anyway, fiefdom.  The examiners exercise such tight control, and the money goes back and forth, there is a lot of quid pro quo.   

I firmly believe the only way this will get put into line, is another EPPA.   

Funny how a lot of examiners now say EPPA was the industries own fault, because we didn't regulate ourselves.  In the future, examiners like me will be saying, it was the industries fault because we couldn't regulate ourselves, and we destroyed the lies of people who tried to warn us.

I don't want things to go down that road.  I am yelling to get peoples attention to stop the direction we are in; sadly, no one is listening.  You want it to fall apart.  I just want it to be honest.

Joe McCarthy wrote on May 7^th, 2016 at 11:43pm:


Speaking as a full member of the American Polygraph Association and credentialed PCSOT examiner, I wholeheartedly share Joe's opinion.

As I have said so many time before, polygraph is primarily all about one thing: MONEY.

In my view, the APA's motto --"Dedicated to Truth" -- is a punchline, not a credo.

I have been out of the loop for a bit, because I thought things in Texas have been resolved; it seems I was wrong, but the current situation is not germane to this string.

I am assuming that where we are talking about is the Wisconsin system of PCSOT.  I don't know much about this system, so I can't make any educated suggestion or judgements.  I will say, I know some good and honest examiners up there.  They are well qualified and are fair independent and unbiased, as far as I know.  That being said, I am very sure there are examiners up there, I am sure, who aren't; that can be said in any profession.

Regardless, I would be very suspicious of any PO forcing you to go to "their guy," because they know this, or that examiner, and they make threats off that.  

Remember what he said, "I know the guy."  Now, this could be an innocent statement; but it also gives rise to suspicion in that, "I know the guy" could indicate a closer relationship than one would hope for.  Given this, if he is using the examiner because he "knows him," this could also mean that if a pattern of sloppy work became apparent, it would be ignored in favor of the friendship which exists between PO and examiner.  

On the other hand, to be fair, "I know the guy" could also mean, "this is a square guy, he will do you right, and fair."  
Having said that, PO's and therapists that are trying to do you right, will typically let you pick another examiner.  After all, you want to hang yourself, so be it.  You may turn up with an examiner who is not in the business for the right reasons.  

My suggestion, hire a lawyer, Know your rights, and trust no examiner who won't give up his charts.  If an examiners is doing nothing improper, than the examiner has nothing to hide.  

Be immediately suspicious if your test is "inconclusive'" and you hear that a lot in group.  There is a Firm in the DFW area, that was once found to have a 45% inconclusive rate.  What happens when you are inconclusive? You have to retake the test.  I will let you do the math from there and draw your own conclusions.  

PCSOT, started with good intentions, but then it became the money maker that employment tests used to be before 1988.  After it became a money maker, it started becoming a racket.  

Fact is, without PCOST, the polygraph industry would die, period.  This is one of the reasons the industry is so protective over it.  Problem is, at least in Texas, they are protective over the territories, or as my intern examiner instructor called them, "fiefdoms," (his words, Texas examiners) more than they are protecting the actual integrity of the industry, and the integrity of the test.  Anyone wanting to do the right thing and not engage in their little fiefdom type system, will be silenced, slandered, libeled, threatened with physical harm, and punished in kangaroo courts, outside the eyes of the general public and any accountability.  Basically, and I know this is funny coming from a guy named Joe McCarthy; and yes, I get the irony; any voice of descent or whistle blower, will be Mudd.  If you don't get the reference, study your history.  

I am going though this again, right now.  

In fact, the Texas Polygraph industry is so corrupt, I feel the only way to fix it at this point is to suspend the practice until the FTC can be brought in to examine the private polygraph associations and PCSOT licensing. 

Oh wait, there is no licensing or enforceable standards of practice for PCSOT in Texas.  The Texas Association of Polygraph Examiners runs that show. Something I have already proven using their own news letter.  JPCOT is also quite secretive in how things get run there too.  

In the document TALEPI_JPCOT EMAIL, you can see the tricks Mr. Hendricks suggests people employ.  It should be noted that Mr Hendricks is current JPCOT Chairman, as one can also see, a very, very familiar name as well, Maria Hubbard.  And lets not even get me started with her right now. 

What I am saying is not unethical, it is the truth.  This is their own documentation.  And it is just the tip of the Texas iceberg.  

In closing, if you think the system in Wisconsin is corrupt, It would probably be a breath of fresh air for me.  

The Texas PCSOT system, is not only corrupt, it is dysfunctional, with 100% lack of State Government oversight.  It should be noted that Examiner run oversight of the polygraph industry, PCOST excluded, had to be taken away from polygraph examiners, because they could no longer be trusted to self regulate the industry.  Hey, don't take my word for it, look it up for yourselves.

There needs to be actual LAWS, which regulate PCSOT.  There needs to be government LICENSING, and oversight, that does not include internal industry oversight.  Moreover, laws need to be put in place that puts approving examiners for these tests, in the hands of the licensing board, and out of the hands of the providers and PO's.   

There are some who will accuse me of protecting sex offenders, this is not the case at all.  I am protecting the consumer.  Let me explain.

In parts of Texas, they are polygraphing DWI probationers.  How many of us know at least one person who has been though that?  Only takes one drink.  Parts of Texas has also started testing repeat drug offenders from what I hear.  There is also talk of testing domestic violence probationers.  This only takes, what is in Texas, a big racket, and makes it HUGE.   

No laws to govern it, little to no oversight, monopolies, anticompetitive behaviors from trade associations acting as "gate keepers"

Think it won't be you sitting in my chair someday?  Think again, because we all think it won't be us, until it is.

Right now. I wouldn't trust the Texas Polygraph Industry, under the guidance of the Texas Association of polygraph Examiners, with an E-meter, much less a polygraph instrument.   

What is really sad is, I have to come here to air these issues because there is no place else to go for help or relief.  How sad is that?  I have to come here, to AP, after all the fuss about coming to AP in 2008, there is still no place else to go to, so I can be heard, and to expose unethical practices in an industry that claims to protect the truth and ethics?

I don't want to have to come here.  I don't want to have to do this at all. I don't want to have to be forced to choose this over being a doormat.

Every time, I think things in this industry is changing for the better, TAPE and its officers does something that makes me see, this industry will die in my life time; and it won't be because of what I am saying here.  It will because of what I am saying here in an effort to save it, and the industry either couldn't or wouldn't listen.   

It is the lack of oversight, lack of accountability, lack of transparency, and anticompetitive nature of this industry that will bring us down.  That is the God's honest truth.   

Every time I see hope, I am reminded in Texas, that some of what Dan says might have a point.  I hate that TAPE and Hubbard make me feel that way, and I am starting to hate others for allowing it to happen.

I have said my peace

Sad I have to do it here

Ray, how accurate, exactly, is PCSOT polygraph "testing"? 

What PCSOT-specific studies in peer-reviewed scientic journals can you cite to support your claims?