Quote:


To wit, the NAS reported concluded the following:

"Estimate of Accuracy Notwithstanding the limitations of the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection.

Accuracy may be highly variable across situations. The evidence does not allow any precise quantitative estimate of polygraph accuracy or provide confidence that accuracy is stable across personality types, sociodemographic groups, psychological and medical conditions, examiner and examinee expectancies, or ways of administering the test and selecting questions. In particular, the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures. There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods."
  (MY UNDERLINING)

I can't think of anything more absurd, or cruel, than subjecting a retarded person to a polygraph interrogation on the pretext of "getting at the truth" or "eliminating" him/her as a "suspect", which is the typical ruse used by LE agencies and others to get people to voluntarily  submit to a polygraphic interrogation.

Incidently, consider the phrase "significantly above chance"  If one were to assume that to mean 20% "above chance" that would equate to only 60%!   If 50% is "chance", then 1.2 x .5 = .6 or 60%. I'll even spot you 5%.  Let's say 65% accuracy.  That is not very accurate.  Especially considering the way the polygraph is presented to the public at large, and suspects in particular.

So to be fair, and in the spirit of gentlepersonly debate, I'll revise my statement and say that the polygraph has not been found to be VERY accurate, and has been found to be unreliable, and NOT a scientifically valid test.

"Dear Suspect.  We think you stole money from your employer.  Will you take the polygraph test, which is really not a scientifically valid test, is unreliable, and not very accurate.  About 60-65% accurate.  We can not FORCE you to take it.  You are within your legal rights to decline.  But if you do, you must be hiding sumthin!  What are you hiding scum bag?  What ya afraid of, huh?!'

TC

"M-O-O-N"  That spells "Tom Cullen"

Quote:


To wit, the NAS reported concluded the following:

[i]"Estimate of Accuracy Notwithstanding the limitations of the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection.

Accuracy may be highly variable across situations. The evidence does not allow any precise quantitative estimate of polygraph accuracy or provide confidence that accuracy is stable across personality types, sociodemographic groups, psychological and medical conditions, examiner and examinee expectancies, or ways of administering the test and selecting questions. In particular, the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures. There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods."

I can't think of anything more absurd, or cruel, than subjecting a retarded person to a polygraph interrogation on the pretext of "getting at the truth" or "eliminating" him/her as a "suspect".

TC

Quote:


To wit, the NAS reported concluded the following:

"Estimate of Accuracy Notwithstanding the limitations of the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection.

Accuracy may be highly variable across situations. The evidence does not allow any precise quantitative estimate of polygraph accuracy or provide confidence that accuracy is stable across personality types, sociodemographic groups, psychological and medical conditions, examiner and examinee expectancies, or ways of administering the test and selecting questions. In particular, the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures. There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods."

Mr Cullen

To be fair, even your favorite oft quoted NAS study found accuracy rates significantly above chance for some uses.

Quote:


Polygraphs have been determined  to be inaccurate, unreliable, and scientifically invalid for the non retarded, so I imagine the same would apply for the retarded.

TC

I need information about using poly graphs on mentally retarded people.  I have a man in jail who is mentally retarded and need
to know if a polygraph can even be accurate on somone who is
mentally retarded, traumatic brian injury.  Please let me know if
you have any information.  Thanks, Liz Lafferty
lizlaffertyventure5@yahoo.com

As you can see by now, polygraphs don't work, but its a good way to raise revenue to your local therapy session or LE agency.   Anyone convicted of a crime will usually pay dearly and financially.  That's all part of the crime "mill" folks.  Just a part of the system, one to keep the money flowing to LE agencies, the courts and the judicial "system."  Welcome to the real world.

Quote:


    As the ploygraph may not be a reliable tool, the investigators believe that it is better that nothing to get confessions.  While I don't believe that the ploygraph is useful in employment processes because it simply "weeds out" applicants who interview good  though the agency don't like, I think it may be useful in getting confessions out of scumbag sex offenders who prey on children and other innocent victims.

As you can tell by the log in name what I am. I am replying to this for several reasons. First off I came to this site to find out the laws regarding Parole adding this requirement and if i can refuse it. George can check the logs and see I did not download any reading material on how to beat a Poly. 
Its easy to beat a poly, all you have to do is not take one.
Now the reason for my reply:
I have taken 11 polygraphs in 8 years.
I was in a SO treatment program that required them.
First poly i failed. Reason it was on sexual history and what i revealed in treatment and I refused to talk about 1 incident because I might be prosecuted for it even though it happened in 1978 with an adult female.
1 month after failing I revealed some of the circumstances of the incident and passed the next polygraph.
A year later I took a maintenance poly. Passed.
A year after that took an Exit poly. Passed.
2 years later I pissed off my parole officer so she had me take a polygraph. I failed it.
Consequences of that where to see a pysch and take another test. I did, i revealed I had had sex outside of marriage. Not a criminal offense. Took another polygraph and failed. 
Consequences- put back into treatment program. Took another polygraph after 6 months of treatment where I did the assignments but did not reveal any further wrong-doing or law breaking. Results- Passed.
A year later took another Exit Poly. Failed.
2 weeks later took another, Failed.
This was at a time of huge emotional distress between my wife and I and looking like I was headed for a divorce. Was told I had to pass the next one or they would violate my parole and send me to prison. I revealed no wrong doing or parole violations. I demanded a different polygrapher. 2weeks later took the test.
Results of test- passed. 
Parole said it was a false pass and said I had to use the original polygrapher. 
Took his test. Results Passed.
What is the point to all this?
After 8 years of dealing with polygraphs with both pass and failed tests I assure you they are very inaccurate. Since no one can track who is posting this except but what I reveal, I have no reason to lie. Or to tell the truth. You weigh it for yourselves on what to believe or not to believe. I know this. I have committed no crimes that were asked about on the polygraph tests. In fact funny thing is on all the questions regarding crimes since my release from prison, i passed. or at least that was not the questions they(polygraphers) said i showed deception on. Questions i failed were stupid questions about have I told the whole truth to my therapist or my parole officer. 
On the last 4 tests the pertininent (spelling) question was wether I had engaged in any sexual relations with anyone other than my wife that I did not reveal to my therapist or parole officer. My answer was no. Remained no and is still no. Why did I fail 2 of the tests and pass the other 2? No one knows. Why did parole say the next to last test was a "false Pass"?  Does that mean even they know its the same as flipping a coin?
Now about this site helping criminals.
I dont think it really does. Considering how many people I have personally seen get drastic actions taken against them for failed polygraphs and only have them come back and pass the next one without revealing any thing they lied about on the first test to.
A polygraph is not going to stop someone from committing a crime.
A polygraph as a tool is total BS. Its the same as Good Cop-Bad Cop, or "I will have them go easier on you if you just admit it" and we read everyday how that false promise gets false confessions.
Why are polygraphs being forced on sex offenders? Because Sex Offenders are the easiest section of the criminal society to pick on. No one will stand up for thier rights. Not even the ACLU. I am speaking from experience here.  You can be convicted of a felony in this country and serve your time and people will give you a chance to show you will not offend again and you can get housing, employment, and assistance from groups like GoodWill and Easter Seals and the Salvation Army to help you get back into society. With 1 blaring exception. If you are convicted of a sex crime. Then forget it. No one will help. You get laid off if anyone knows of your crime. You can't find employment in any place that has females working in it.
And funny little thing about polygraph examiners. They work out of Sex Offender Treatment program offices and share in the money collected. And if your a Sex offender required to take a polygraph, that polygrapher has to be an "Approved Sex Offender Polygrapher". SO he has close ties with the treatment program. And the treatment program makes its money by having people in treatment. The SO's in treatment have to pay for all this, Plus the state also pays them. 
One reason I passed the finale 2 polygraphs even though nothing changed in my "story" was that the state was no longer subsidising my treatment and they couldn't require me to pay more. 
Here is an alarming trend I see. They fail you on the polygraphs all the way up until parole is about to put you in prison, then you pass the next poly. Why? because if your in prison, your not in the program, and as such they are not getting paid.
I dont have nothing against the treatment programs. Hell it did me a lot of good. Of course I am not a predator but I see where it does good for others too. I am stead fastly against polygraphs though. I would rather go see a Tarot card reader and have more faith in thier results than i would in a polygraph.

NervousOregon,

You might also wish to contact the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon regarding the situation that prompted you to post here. Their e-mail address is info@aclu-or.org.

That is part of the problem we have little to no money and there are other possibilities of a lawsuit against the county because of other technicalities of this case but mean while he may end up in jail because of one severely messed up system if he is forced to take the polygraph but is reading up on polygraph's via this site.  Part of the problem is finding a good lawyer who will take it on a contingency basis that there will be money in it for them later down the line.  But until the supposed criminal matter is cleared up we can not pursue a civil matter very easily because lawyers are not willing to take on both cases since we do not have money for the criminal.  However I will contact a lawyer about this specific technicality since I do not believe that public defense will do an effective job. Thank you for your quick response!

NervousOregon wrote on Dec 12^th, 2005 at 10:45pm:


NervousOregon,

The authorities in your state have in all likelihood been advised by their own attorneys that such a requirement is in conformity with Oregon law. While polygraph "testing" is sheer quackery and should never be relied upon, it would be best to seek the advice of a lawyer regarding the extent to which the Oregon judiciary may (however mistakenly) rely upon it.

In Oregon when one is released on bail they sign a condition of their release that they can be subject to polygraph.  Is this really legal? I researched laws pertaining to it but thus far only found ones in regards to if you are a sex offender and they still can not be considered admissible in court hearings.  Does anyone have any other information about this and weather or not it is legal.

Railroaded,

  I must congratulate you on your NOT giving in to the polygraph horror.   You are wise to use this site to enrichen yourself to the biased, horrifying outcome that the polygraph can render.   Bravo!! to you and your family!!!

  Regards

Quote:
I used the information on this board to make the decision to REFUSE taking the polygraph, and in all likelihood it kept me out of prison.  I thank you and my children thank you, George.

Quote:
I have children as well...and there was 50/50 chance that I would have lived the next 50 years in a 6x12 cell without seeing my children if I had taken the polygraph.  It was evident from the beginning of the investigation that I was presumed guilty, and I am sure the police polygrapher would have nailed it home with his "test".

Here's the kicker...I AM INNOCENT!  I used the information on this site to educate myself about my rights, the procedure and the reliability...nothing more.  I didn't come here to learn how to cheat the test.  I came here to learn about the test itself and what I read scared the shit out of me.  I am an intelligent guy...I could have employed the counter measures to insure a favorable outcome.  Instead I learned that contrary to my belief, the test DOESN'T WORK.  If I had learned here that it does indeed work, and taking it and being honest would have cleared my name, of course I would have taken it.

What I read here convinced me that the polygraph could only hurt me.  I refused to take it and instead insisted that the investigators complete their witch hunt with good old-fashioned police work.  You know what they learned?  I AM INNOCENT.  I would bet dollars to donuts (any of you cops wanna take that bet?) that had I taken the poly I would have failed and the investigation would have ended there....no questions asked...straight to jail.

Instead, I let them interview my kids, my neighbors' kids, my friends' kids...the took all my computer equipment, all my cameras, CDs, etc.  You know what they discovered?  I AM INNOCENT.

So you can call me a pervert, molester, whatever you want.  But the fact of the matter is that I am cleaner than ALL of you...I have been investigated and came out clean.  I suffered through the darkest times, I ran the gauntlet of police abuse and community scorn and I walked through the valley of the shadow of death and I have come through the other side as clean as a whistle.

And I have come through in no small part because of the information on this site.  So thank you George....from the bottom of my heart.  When I tuck my kids into bed at night, or we play at the park or I drop them at school or help with their homework....when I kiss my wife or watch a funny TV show or hear the rain....when I experience all of the little things that would have been taken away by the polygraph had I not educated myself about it, I say a silent thank you to George and this site.

wow, that was some great reading!

Quote:



Cop,

First, I would like to put to rest this talk about how you and ISBS are Poly-examiners.  While you may indeed be "wannabe" examiners, Polygraph examiners you are not.  

Second,  I was correct in my assumption that you are indeed a simpleton, because only a simpleton would not realize that idiot and simpleton are synonymous.  Therefore, Mr. "intelligent", you have once again pointed out to all of us how lacking in that department you really are.

The following is simply to help you LEARN, and definitely not to show off my amazing ability to look things up in the dictionary (WEBSTER'S New World).  Something I suggest you learn to do.

IDIOT:  ignorant and common person, layman, ignorant person, a very foolish or stupid person. a mentally retarded person.

SIMPLETON:  a person who is stupid or easily deceived; fool.

FOOL:  a person with little or no judgment, common sense, wisdom, silly or stupid person; simpleton, a mentally retarded person.


THESAURUS (WEBSTER'S)

IDIOT:  simpleton, nincompoop, booby, fool.  

In the future it may serve your cause to educate yourself, before you think yourself intelligent enough to make attacks against the intelligence of others.  Now, whether or not you actually have the mental capacity is a whole other problem in and of itself.  This I believe is substantiated by your inability to comprehend that whole sponsorship issue with the 911 site.

top-cop wrote on Aug 11^th, 2004 at 7:07pm:


And sometimes it doesn't; and sometimes it catches people who are telling the truth and sometimes it doesn't.

What's your point?

Sometimes it catches folks like kcr

Polygraph adds new twist
By Dave Forster, The Forum
Published Tuesday, August 10, 2004

As a district judge and former public defender in northwestern Minnesota, Donald Aandal is no stranger to child molesters and rapists.

But until a few years ago, he had no idea they struck so often.

"Everything we could imagine is worse," said Aandal, a judge based in Warren since 2000. "What we knew 10 years ago and what we know today is night and day, and we're still just scratching the surface."

Aandal credits that revelation to lie detector tests, an increasingly common requirement of sex offender treatment programs in North Dakota and Minnesota. Counselors and probation officers praise the exams as crucial for treating offenders, but as was seen Monday in Cass County District Court, the practice can also create difficult questions for prosecutors.

In court was Donald James Henderson, a 46-year-old Fargo man convicted in 2002 of gross sexual imposition against children in Bottineau and Cass counties.

The charges he faced Monday centered on the abuse of another child in 1997 and 2000, which Henderson admitted to in a polygraph test for treatment following his 2002 conviction.

The counselor, as required by law, reported the abuse, the police investigated, and the Cass County state's attorney charged Henderson, 1024 40th St. S., on new counts of gross sexual imposition. Henderson came to court Monday to plead guilty to the new charge.

Assistant Cass County State's Attorney Mark Boening said local sex offender counselors worry harsh prosecution of Henderson will discourage future offenders from being open. Boening recommended supervised probation, to be served concurrently with the probation Henderson already is serving.

East Central District Judge Georgia Dawson thought the crime called for more, though, and added five years of probation to Henderson's current sentence.

"At first blush, this certainly did not appear to be an appropriate sentence," Dawson said. "Frankly, I'm not convinced that it is at second blush."

In similar cases statewide, prosecutors usually take the route Boening did and recommend a more lenient sentence, Assistant Attorney General Jon Byers said. They don't want their prosecution to hinder treatment for other offenders, but they don't want to offer blanket immunity, either.

"There's really not an easy answer to it," Byers said.

Henderson's case also raised a looming legal question surrounding the polygraph confessions.

His defense attorney, Bruce Quick, said he isn't sure the test results are admissible in court. One could argue the confessions aren't voluntary, because refusing to take the tests can be a violation of probation, Quick said.

Boening disagreed, but the attorneys didn't need to address the issue.

Henderson had admitted to the crime a second time, after hearing his Miranda rights and waiving his right to an attorney, when police followed up on the report from the counselor.

"If this had been simply the polygraph that was submitted, he would have fought it," Quick said.

Boening and Quick said Henderson is the first person they know of in Cass County to be charged with a crime that came out in a probation-mandated polygraph test.

In northwestern Minnesota, counselors advise their offenders to be vague about the identity of their victims, said Aandal, the judge from Warren. That way, the offender can be honest about his history and counselors don't have to report the old crime. In some cases, the strategy has revealed up to 100 new victims, Aandal said.

The intent of the tests isn't to uncover new crimes to prosecute, though, Aandal said.

"Our primary focus is treatment, so we don't get more victims," he said.

Readers can reach Forum reporter Dave Forster at (701) 241-5538

Quote:


SM, the problem w/using a gun as an analogy, is that guns don't go off falsely.  I.e., if we did arm every person w/a loaded gun, the statistics would be flawed if the guns didn't work properly (like the poly).   

Thus, if a gun was like a poly, the gun COULD commit the crime (10% of the time, since polys are SUPPOSEDLY 90% accurate...).

Cop;

Polys are crap, pure and simple.  

I wouldn't waste my time on this website if I didn't believe in George's objective of ridding our society of this ridiculous tool.

I've done my time attached to the silly contraction, and both times I went in with the, “since I’m telling the truth, why should I worry?” attitude  .  

Though unlike George, I INITIATED the polys in both instances.  Moreover, to ensure that results would be undisputable, I used attorneys to employ the services of two TOP firms in the the Dallas area (seems that in Dallas, you have to go through an attorney to access the highest accredited firms).  I spent THOUSANDS of dollars to ensure the truth would hold water via the use of two highly credible firms.
 
I’ve never had a criminal record, never arrested, NEVER had other allegations against me, I’ve held a TS clearance w/a BI, am well educated, at a senior management level of the institution I work for, and a volunteer in my community.  

I falsely failed BOTH polys, on the two separate allegations.  

After the results the operator of one firm had the nerve to point his finger in my face and start yelling, “You lied! You lied! Admit it! Admit it!  Tell me the truth!!!”.  ----  And this how a highly credible firm performing this type of work acts?  The best in Dallas?  

Of course, no evidence was found to back either of the poly results, leaving the poly standing out there by itself, unsupported.   Child Protective Services never interviewed me on the allegations (sent me ‘dismissal’ letters in both instances), the accusations never went to court, I was never even visited by law enforcement.  Yeah, what a great tool a poly is. 

So, in the 90% accuracy that poly operator claimants have, how many false positives are being excluded?  Mine was.  Are others?  Probably many, as false positives aren’t something one tells the world about or puts forth as statistical data; it’s something that one hides because of the negative connotations associated w/the failures.

I'll bet the farm that there are many people out there that end up as defendants that confidentially volunteer to a poly and fail, only to be cleared of charges, later.  I’ll bet that they NEVER discuss their false positive results, because of the negative connotations associated with failing a poly, as the operators have LIED to the public on the accuracy and the creditability of the results for so long, and it seems to be taboo to face off against poly community claims of accuracy.

Sure, some people will misuse this site, but as Seeker said in a post a yr or so back, “This site does have both sides - good and bad.  What anyone chooses to find here will be based upon their intentions when coming to this site.”  That philosophy can be applied to anything in life; what’s meant for a good cause can be twisted into evil results.
 
Besides, how many people have been interrogated and released back into our society w/o further investigation because they DID pass a poly when they were guilty?  Ask the Ted Bundys of the world.  All the more reason to ban polys.

Cop, what would you and "I smell" do it you weren't operating polys?  Sell tuna behind a fish counter?  And thus your justification for being proponents of a vehicle of crap... "I got no where else to go, I got no where else to go..."  

We’ll get the crap polys out our society one day, you’ll see.

Anonymous,
chill for second.  I'm not blaming this site.  I am simply stating that there are posts from sex offenders with questions on how to avoid being caught and admitting they HAVE BEEN DECEPTIVE.  They are posting their dishonesty, and I never said you are intentionally helping sex offenders/criminals learn to beat the poly, however read the posts because that's what you are getting.  I'm not even disapointed by the fact others are trying to lie to on the poly to gain employment.  If Joe Blow feels he has to to lie on the poly that is his choice and if he gets caught he may be excluded from law enforcement all together.   
Whether not law enforcement sponsors this site is irrelevant.  Just because freedom of speach allows you to provide information without violating any laws is fantastic, however don't we have a MORAL DUTY to do what's right?  Do people get screwed on poly graph test?  I'm sure they do.  Will I ever get screwed on a poly test?  I'm sure I will, however because of the responsibility I have to the community I still am not going to support providing any information to criminals that are looking to beat the system.
Is there anything wrong with law enforcement using the poly to hire candidates?  I would say no.  It is their right, however unfair it seems.  I recently went to a medical exam and answered yes to questions that may exclude me from the hireing process.  Personally I didn't think it was relevant since I know my own health better than any doctor who speaks to me for five minutes does.  I could have lied on the questionare and nobody would have ever known, but I didn't, it's called morals.   
Now, before we debate what being supportive is, my interpretation is when one provides any type of information, advice, suggestions, and answering of relevant questions.
I like this site.  It makes some very good points about how the poly is not reliable and as stated before I am not as much concerned about the people who are looking for ways to beat the poly for hiring purposes although I feel if you need to lie on a poly then the problem doesn't lie with passing or failing the poly.  The problem is that the individual is either ashamed or uncomfortable with themselves.  That is a problem.  How can one enforce the law if they feel guilty about the times they have broken the law and not been caught.  One of my first posts states to be honest with yourself.  Admit to what you have done and take your lumps.  I think most of the candidates who have made posts about being screwed by the poly are being honest and sincere and if they were screwed by a false reading on a poly is indeed a shame.
Unfortunately that is part of the deal when you try to get into law enforcement.  and for those people who have been falsely convicted for failing a poly, it is a bigger shame for the system.  I would like to address the point that I don't think as many people fail the poly for telling the truth as some of these posts state.  I would say most of the story  lies somewhere in the middle.  If these people would come here to learn how to beat the poly, which may be considered cheating, then why would I believe them to be telling me the truth?  I would be more inclined to believe a person who has failed the poly and rather than try to beat the poly the next time, decide to apply somewhere else and just try again.  Police Departments don't black ball and most likely a good candidate will get another chance to take a poly. 
I don't fully understand how the poly works.  I know it mainly deals with responses to body functions such as breathing, heart rate, sweating, etc., but I do understand everyones body reacts differently to stimuli.   
I am not here to make enemies with anyone or accuse anyone of directly helping criminals.  What I am asking is not to give criminals the upper hand.  If an individual admits he is trying to beat the poly to avoid prosecution, then why would you even reply to his post.  The guy is scum!  Even if they feel they have been wrongly accused, at least take a moment in deciding if helping them pass a poly is in the best interest of society.  Most people who are low income qualify for free legal aid, and  If they have a problem with a poly then they should address it with their attorney.......

"Cop,"

Don't piss on our shoes and tell us it's raining. Anonymous gave you detailed instructions on how to confirm that law enforcement agencies sponsor www.911hotjobs.com by paying for job postings there. Perhaps his instructions were too complicated for you to follow. Here's a direct link:

http://www.911hotjobs.com/advertise2.htm

Do you still deny it?

This law enforcement-sponsored website also profits from selling literature on how to pass a polygraph "test." Go to the following page, and in the lower right you'll find a group of listings under the header, "Polygraph Testing Materials":

http://www.911hotjobs.com/bookstore/testcenter.htm

Although the website is intended for public safety applicants, they'll sell the materials to anyone who'll pay for it...even convicted sex offenders.

Quote:



Once again you show your stupidity dimwit.  Those are free links - not paid listings.

Good for you Gino baby, you have learned to read a dictionary.  Now let me tell you one more time, none of those things apply to that site.  Those are free links not sponsored.  But you never did check your facts.