SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 30^th, 2008 at 2:00pm:

He was paroled on the belief that the containment method - which relies on the polygraph - could prevent him from reoffending. Obviously, it didn't... 

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 30^th, 2008 at 2:00pm:

They didn't have enough evidence at the time to civilly commit him... 

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 30^th, 2008 at 2:00pm:

There's a lot of blame to go around. This case demonstrates a systematic and systemic failure of the criminal justice system...

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 30^th, 2008 at 2:00pm:

Actually, he was a level III offender but they didn't have enough information to civilly commit him. Remember, they did not know that he had murdered people at the time he finished his sentence...

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 30^th, 2008 at 2:00pm:

Because you know as well as I do that it's standard practice to do this rather than revocation as the system usually strives for the least restrictive placement. Plus shock incarceration was in vogue at the time...

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 30^th, 2008 at 2:00pm:

Yes, he uncovered that Duncan smoked pot and was at his girlfriend's house without his parole officer's permission. How about those two murders he committed. How'd the polygraph miss that?

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 30^th, 2008 at 2:00pm:

How can I be lying when I asked a question? And why are you unwilling to speculate on this when you'll speculate on just about everything else? Oh yes, it's because you know the probable answer and it doesn't make the polygraph look good....

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 30^th, 2008 at 2:00pm:

Yup, I'm guessing he had more polygraphs in this time frame since the conditions of his parole mandated them every 90 days. See here:

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/sections/duncan/?ID=80802

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 30^th, 2008 at 2:00pm:

I don't know for sure but sadly, I'm willing to bet that he did. 

As post-conviction polygraph is touted by those that sell it, it's supposed to provide valuable feedback on compliance with supervision and treatment. It somehow missed that he murdered two children. There's no way to spin that, the polygraph failed to detect his most serious crimes...

Quote:


Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 29^th, 2008 at 10:31pm:


So tell me what good was the failed polygraph? What did it achieve? Did it prevent him from reoffending? Did it deter him in any way, shape or form? No, it merely demonstrates the futility of its use when we really need it to work.

And you answered none of my questions, so I'll restate them:

Do you really think that he had no other polygraphs in this time frame? 

Is it common practice to let more than 9 months and then 8 months go by between tests for Level III offenders?

How about my bet that he had more victims, do you really think he didn't have more victims in this time frame?

At this point can you cite a SINGLE POLYGRAPH that he PASSED after murdering those two girls? Can you cite  a single polygraph he passed after murdering anyone? 

I don't think you can. 

Guesses DONT COUNT
Spin this ... YOU'RE just making stuff up.
Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 29^th, 2008 at 8:54pm:


What exactly did this failed polygraph uncover? That he smoked pot and didn't tell his parole officer that he was spending time with his girlfriend and her two children. He was not revoked for these violations; he was revoked after he absconded. Post-conviction polygraph is sold that it can uncover serious trangressions yet it failed to do that in this case, why? Because Duncan was able to fool the polygrapher into thinking he had uncovered all there was to uncover. If I were a polygrapher, I wouldn't chalk this one up in my win category.

By the way, the two girls that Duncan admitted murdering were abducted July 6, 1996. His failed polygraph didn't come until March 26, 1997, more than 7 months later. There is a gap of more than 8 months between between his passed June 1996 test and his failed March 1997 test of the available polygraph tests on the web.  These are dated January, May, and September of 1995 and then it skips to June of 1996 and then March of 1997. Do you really think that he had no other polygraphs in this time frame? I'll remind you that he was a paroled Level III offender, is it common practice to let more than 9 months and then 8 months go by between tests for Level III offenders? 

Additionally, Duncan is no longer a suspect in the March 26, 1997 murder of Deborah Palmer so it's not relevant to the case anymore.

Anyone out there want to bet me that he didn't have more victims in this time frame? I'm guessing that he did. Heck, I'll even give you 100-1 odds...

Go ahead, spin away....

OK Digithead Let me see if I have your positon correct. DUNCAN passed all of his polygraphs until the one he took on the day the 2 little girls disappeared, 3/26/97,WHICH HE FAILED and because he didn't confess to murdering 2 little girls that no-one knew were missing yet, after FAILING this polygraph, your contention is the polygraph didn't work even though he FAILED THE POLYGRAPH. 

With logic like that I predict a bright future for you in politics.

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 29^th, 2008 at 11:54am:


Let's see, Duncan wasn't a suspect in the Seattle murders until after he was caught for the Groene case in 2005 and admitted that he did it. The sources are his polygraph tests in that time frame (1996-97) that did not uncover the fact that he murdered two little girls. It seems a clear case of polygraph failure to me, what other proof would you like? Do you really think the polygraph "worked" in this case?

digithead wrote on Aug 29^th, 2008 at 2:49am:


OK so Digithead says they are true but I guess he doesn't have a source to back up his assertion. The link he provided certainly doesn't.  I guest he must have had a vision or a dream or perhaps found it in a fortune cookie.  

Could you at least scan the fortune cookie and post it so it doesn't look like you just made it all up?

Sancho Panza

My statements that the polygraph failed to detect his most serious crimes are true. The only thing they pinned on him were minor parole violations. Duncan was not revoked for failing this polygraph, he was revoked for absconding. Given how post-conviction polygraph is sold, shouldn't we expect more from it? If it worked as sold, Joseph Duncan would have been caught for the Seattle murders. It didn't. You can try to spin it but reliance on the polygraph failed society in this case. 

By the way, here is a link from the Spokesman Review that details Duncan's travels in this time frame:

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/sections/duncan/?ID=83414

Digithead,  Would you care to post the source of your information as I requested. 

I have seen what purports to be a copy of the examiners report on his Polygraph from 3/26/97 and it contains NO information regarding any admissions he may have made. 
Based on question 4. I would have to conclude that he admitted to illegal drug use before the exam not after. 
Here is a link to the report.
http://img58.imageshack.us/my.php?image=326975yv.jpg

Sancho Panza

The failed polygraph after the murders got Duncan to admit that he smoked pot which would've been detected with a UA. Seems that he was able to manipulate the polygrapher in his favor away from his real crimes. Hence, the polygrapher failed to detect Duncan's more serious crimes which allowed him to commit further murders. Face it, Duncan was a false negative no matter how you spin it. He suckered the system and tricked the polygrapher into thinking he had done nothing more serious than smoke pot which created a false sense of security.

As for something more substantial, how about a quote from the monster himself which he said in his closing arguments earlier this week, "You people really don't have any clue yet of the true heinousness of what I've done."  

By the way, Duncan created an encrypted diary that contains all of his criminal acts. The FBI hasn't cracked it yet but it's just a matter of time before all of his crimes come to light. Do you really want to bet that Duncan didn't do other things while on parole that the polygraph/polygrapher also missed?

Lastly, it's a false dichotomy to suggest that I have to come up with something "better" than the polygraph. To me, expunging this pseudoscience from law enforcement is better as we will no longer be relying on wishful thinking and make-believe security.

The polygraph is great example of routine activities theory: suitable targets, motivated offenders, and lack of capable guardians. With countermeasures employed by motivated offenders to easily manipulate the test (i.e.., lack of capable guardian), it's no wonder people like Duncan can rape and murder until they get caught the old-fashioned way.

Digithead:
Duncan Timeline
Convicted 1980 for raping a 14 year old boy and paroled in 1994
Polygraph on 1/17/95 Passed
Polygraph on 5/17/95 Passed
Polygraph on 9/14/95 Passed
He violated his parole in 1996 by using marijuana and getting caught, and for possession of a firearm. 
Polygraph on 6/11/96 Passed
July 1996 first murders Sammiejo White, 11, and Carmen Cubias, 9 Bodies found 2 years later
Deborah Palmer, 7-years-old March 26,1997 disappears Her body was found 5 days later
Polygraph on 3/26/97 Failed
Then he is on the run
Next possible murder Anthony Martinez disappeared on April 4, 1997.

Although Information on the internet is sketchy I have not found any information alleging that this monster passed a single polygraph after committing a murder. 

If you have something substantive in this regard please post your source. 

Sancho Panza

digithead

How would you catch them?

Update on the Joseph Duncan case - he was sentenced to death in federal court yesterday for the kidnapping, torture, and murder of 9-year-old Dylan Groene. He had already pled guilty in Idaho for the murder of Dylan's family and the rape and kidnapping of his sister Shasta. CNN has a good summary of the case:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/27/duncan.death.ap/index.html

Duncan's case demonstrates the futility of post-conviction polygraph as it failed to detect his most serious offense(s). Duncan admitted that he murdered two sisters from Seattle during while he was on parole in the mid-90s. He took multiple polygraph tests as a condition of his parole and because these so-called tests failed to detect his crimes, five more people lost their lives and a little girl's life has been shattered. There may be additional victims of this monster that have yet to be uncovered.

Most of the anti- people here complain about false positives, I worry about the false negatives. So I ask the question again, how many more Joseph Duncans are out there getting away with rape and murder because we rely on this pseudoscience to catch them?

Agreed...we may never know if my position is correct.  The human psyche can be a dark and disturbing place.  I find it interesting that our most violent and twisted criminals, even mass murderers have the moral high ground on those that they perceive to be child molesters.

It is such a touchy subject...as stated above I would lose all rationale if I found that someone was harming my children.

To Casual Bystander,

I think that your position and the rationale you present are solid.
Correct? Maybe. 

The treatment (and success thereof) of offenders and victims is one that could be debated forever
without 100% agreement and without us ever really knowing all the answers.
Human behaviour will never be reliably predictable.

But you did put your points across very well. 

Please don't mistake my post as acceptance of sexual offenders or an attempt to diminish the seriousness of the crimes.  Thank God you were able to cut short any attempts at molestation in your youth and I will pray for your niece's daughter.

As the father of two children aged 9 (boy) and 6 (girl) I am always vigilant when they are around other adults and adolescents.  God help the person I ever suspect of touching either of my children.

My involvement in this thread is only to inject a bit of reality.  I don't believe that everyone that fails the poly is guilty, just as I don't believe that everyone who passes is innocent.  I don't believe that every person accused of molestation is guilty, just as I don't believe that everyone who professes innocence is innocent.  There are some truly disturbed individuals walking the streets and it is our responsibility to protect our children from them.

By the same token, there are also mixed up people who make mistakes.  Maybe the judgement is bad, or their reasoning centers of the brain don't function properly.  Maybe they are dealing with stresses that affect their reasoning, or they don't have the ability to understand the consequences of their actions.  It also could be that they were molested as young children and are repeating their experience.

We have to come to a point as a society where the topic of sexual molestation can be approached rationally.  Making blanket statements that all sex offenders should be killed or castrated or tortured will only contribute to the hysteria and serve to force offenders even further into their morass.  How can a beginning offender seek the help needed to control their urges if they are certain to face an angry lynch mob?

It is commonly accepted in scientific circles that a majority of victims of abuse go on to become abusers later in life.  If our collective stance is that all molesters should be killed, we might as well kill the victims as well in order to prevent them from offending as they mature.  In this way we can stop the cycle of victimization/abuse.  <--- facetious remark

Hello Casual Bystander;

My post was emotionally fuelled. No question. But the background to that:
I was the victim of sexual offenders three times in my youth. At the age of
ten, a family friend put his hand between my legs - my father sorted him out.
At 13 yrs, a man tried to corner me in a public toilet - I shouted and a friend
came to assist me - we manged to chase him out - he had tried to strangle
me - this incident was extremely disturbing. At 15yrs, I was hiking home after 
school - a man picked me up and put his hand on my crotch. I punched him
out when he stopped at a red light.

My niece's 4 yr old daughter was molested at kindergarten last year, by a 50+
yr old handyman. She still has nightmares.

My teenage daughter was stalked on holiday and cornered in a bathroom at
a hotel in Palm Springs. She was very traumatised.

During my p/g years, every single suspect sexual offender that i tested,
failed and there was no doubt in my mind that they had failed because 
they were guilty. Full Stop.

So when I say, hit the sob's with the poly - it is a knee-jerk reaction.

But it would be great thing to do. I have no time for sexual offenders or
pedophiles. Usually by the time they become suspects for a p/g test they
are already well into it.

BTW - I cant argue your recidivism stats - because I dont have any. But
I do wonder what they would look like if one had to add the numbers of
unsolved sex attacks and murders (unknown crimes committed by paroled  offenders)......food for thought.

Quote:
1904,  I have been a big fan of your posts for the past month or so and have been following the action on this site for several years.

Although I normally agree with much of what you post, I must call BS on this particular post.  In spite of the generally accepted societal hysteria when discussing sex offenders (of any classification), studies have shown that recidivism rates for child molesters are typically lower than the recidivism rate of other types of criminals.

At some point in the near future, we as a society MUST learn to behave rationally and discuss the serious issue of sex offenders in a manner that will allow progress in treatment, housing, awareness, etc. WITHOUT simply condemning offenders to death.

While I agree that VIOLENT OFFENDERS and REPEAT OFFENDERS and HIGH LEVEL RISKS should be segregated from the innocent, we must also agree that treatment is an option for first-time offenders and that the chance of success is actually quite high.

In one 10 year study of Recidivism rates of sex offenders, it was shown that the recommitment for a new crime is 22%, of which 14% are NON-SEX offenses.  The TOTAL SEX-RELATED recidivism rate, including technical violations of supervision conditions was 11%.

Among sex offenders recidivism rates for rapists (with adult victims) is 17.5% while the rate of re-offense for extra-familial child molesters is 8.7%.  The same study shows that those offenders who receive treatment while incarcerated are apt to re-offend at a significantly lower rate.

Let me conclude by pointing out that I am not a child molester, I am not a rapist or a sexual deviant.  I am simply someone who sees through the hysteria.

Seems like the real issue is that Duncan was given a 2nd chance to terrorise society.
To my mind, he should have been shot when he was first caught. Sexual offenders get
worse or get clever. They dont get 'better' (cured)

If the authorities insist on using a polygraph on a sexual offender, then it should only
be as a means with which to bash the sob's head in.

Quote:


Post-conviction polygraphy is like waterboarding at Guantanamo (or any other form of government torture): it is useful, in that it can elicit confessions. 

I believe this is the spirit in which it is being used presently in the USA: its practictioners/supporters are well aware that it has no diagnostic validity in discerning truth from lies; and they don't care. 

They just want confessions. 

They also take for granted - and don't care - that innocents  are swept-up in their polygraphic fishing expeditions.

Quote:


Why wasn’t he polygraphed again after being caught?  Doesn’t the pro-polygraph crowd think they might have been able to get him to admit to the Anthony Martinez murder if he had been polygraphed?  Did those involved in the case just assume he was on his best behavior while running from the police?


Quote:


Perhaps the APA should put out a disclaimer that polygraph testing doesn’t prevent high-risk sex offenders from re-offending?  At best, it might catch them, but only after they have committed another crime. (as nonombre stated, the polygraph does not predict the future)  Instead, polygraphers prefer to exaggerate the accuracy of their test, which no doubt helps to mislead judicial systems into over-reliance on the polygraph test.  If polygraphers were more forthright about the limitations of their test, perhaps criminals would not be let out into society on the false hope that a polygraph machine will keep them in line.

Quote:


I’m just joining these quotes for those that seem to think the polygraph successfully caught Duncan in 1997.  There’s a good chance that Duncan was killing people and still passed multiple polygraphs.

retcopper wrote on Sep 13^th, 2006 at 5:40pm:


Duncan will get the death penalty, so he will be punished for his deeds. However, all of the problems and mistakes that occurred that allowed him to continue offending need to be examined so that they can be prevented or mitigated in future cases. As I've stated previously, lack of information sharing between jurisdictions, an overworked parole system, and lack of adequate monitoring were all culprits...

But I blame the initial reliance on the polygraph because it gave a false sense of security which predicated all of what followed...

The polygraph should be abandoned in all of its uses in law enforcement because it's pseudoscience which ruins careers and threatens national security/public safety...

Digithead:

If the polygraph results keep the guy from being released you comolain. If the test frees him you still complain.  Which way do you want it?  Sorry, but as good as we, are the polygraph cannot predict  the future. The plolygraph is only one component of the containment program so if you want to place blame how about pointing the finger at the other parties involved. I dont think I missed the point. The thrust of your post was that the polygrapher should be blamed.  IMHO the Judge also bears some resonsibility.  And of course, although not politically correct to say this this,  don;t you think just a little blame should go to the doer.

I am enjoying the parley between digit and retcopper, while once again realizing that Geroge has the only cogent message in this thread:

I will repeat the basic failings of the poly:

It does not detect anything.  It is a cool biofeedback machine that measures certain physiological changes and levels.  You could say it suggests that something -might- be up, but it proves nothing, and may only be showing stress or revulsion.  The happy endings come when the post-test interrogation geared toward the abnormal stress readings produces something.  If these perverts, and all other crooks, know the lie behind the poly, then it becomes worthless...

It is sad whenever a criminal uses info from this site to beat a poly, I submit.  However, other, bigger, and more frequent harms occur such that the lie must be exposed, as should all black lies.

Again, the only way that a poly ever works is if the subject buys into it and confesses.  If they deny everything, then you have nothing.  Incidentally, I tend to doubt some of these stories where people claim they would be violated if they failed, or are violated if they come back inconclusive a certain # of times.  I wonder if some of those persons aren't deep cover polyboys... you could contest such a violation from here to Mars and back 8)

I think we all know the lie behind all this.  I will be the first to argue disutility, also.  This polygraph lie will only provoke lies in return, which is the standard slippery slope.  I advocate, as always, that this clunker be retired... all lies are shameful...