mattee13720

You should be aware that convicted SO's enjoys little to no constitional rights. The Supreme Court has ruled that new SO laws overrides the constitutional "expost facto" "Bills of Attainder" law. In other words a SO law passed today can be applied to a crime way back beyond the date of the crime. You should be careful bud.

Quote:

Your constitutional views are correct. However, I personally am against utilizing knowledge found on this website (or elsewhere) to facilitate lying--especially with regard to getting away with probation violations. I am against the use of the polygraph and its abuses, but encourage you to be honest and use these resources only to alleviate the chance of a false positive. If your infractions could lead to a revocation, I'd strongly recommend discussing this with your attorney.

Not something you should be advertising on the Internet, how you have violated terms and conditions of your supervision (assuming probation), even if (relatively or not) minor.

I'm a convicted sex offender in the state of Florida, my victim was some girl I met at a party and my crime was a low lever sex offense. I feel so strongly that polygraphs are unconstitutional that I have lied and passed four in the last two years. I haven't had sex with anyone under age, I've been late getting home, watched pornography and other small violations of my probation/treatment guideline. Simply put, no one has the right to make me give statements against myself, this is America and that isn't how we do things here. I have passed these polygraphs because my beliefs are just. Also, I believe that once you pass one with theses beliefs you will continue to pass them. I don't flex anything, I don't practice breathing......As long as you feel like you are telling the truth then nothing else matters.

You are in Colorado, decided to accept probation rather than incarceration.  This resulted in your receiving treatment.  Why are you now complaining about your own decision?   

Your complaint about your examiner is actually a compliment to him, he told the truth regarding his experience with the government positions he has held.  He is an excellent examiner.   

It appears you are consumed with anger at the system, and I do understand some anger based on the sting operation that resulted in your conviction.  You may want to consider getting some help for your anger problems, it might be of benefit. 

Good luck in your quest for happiness.   

Bill_Brown wrote on Jun 18^th, 2011 at 4:04pm:


Given the opportunity, I would have taken the jail time, if I could do it over.
Yes, I said JAIL. Not Prison. You don't go to Prison on a misdemeanor charge.

I would have gotten what? 180 days max? (well, 90 days after good time). Or hell, 90 days, and then just 45.

Of course, rather then 2.5 years of 'treatment'.

Quite honestly, it depends what is really hanging over your head. I wouldn't have worried about getting killed in the County jail.

Stefano,

I think the exam Mr. Truth mentions is "part" of a screening exam and you are correct, a break out should have been conducted before any decision was made.  Thanks for bringing out that information.

Mr. Truth wrote on Jun 18^th, 2011 at 5:09pm:

The polygraph technique does not allow for calling individual questions as being NDI or DI; these are conclusions reserved for the "exam" in its entirety subsequent to scoring all spots on all charts. Some computer programs try to indicate otherwise, but it's just another example, along with multiple issue testing, of uncontrolled deviations from their established technique. Such arrogant extensions are done on a whim without correlation to any research and only serve to further pervert this sinister process.

Mr. Truth wrote on Jun 18^th, 2011 at 5:09pm:



There is a concept called "dampening".  In theory one dampens out one question and focuses on a question that poses the greatest threat.  (I did state theory).   

However a false positive is a false positive, regardless of all the theory attached.

Tell me how this works:

Scored NDI on "have you had sex with anyone other than your wife in the last X weeks?"

Scored DI on "have you had sex with anyone under the age of 18 in the last X weeks?"

And yes, my wife then was well beyond 18. 

The polygraph is a farce, it is easily beaten, and it provides no verifiable repeatability or verification. In other words, it detects nothing other than physiological responses which are then interpreted by either charlatans or people living off of the government gravy train. And that's a fact. 

People who told the truth and were scored deceptive know it, people who have lied and passed know it, spies know it, and the sad fact is that those who rely upon income generated by administering so-called exams know it but lack the integrity and principles to stop selling the lies about it in the first place.

I get the concept behind it: guilty people may confess when presented with the results of an exam. But then, you are dealing with an ignorant (as in lack of knowledge or education about the efficacy of the polygraph) population. What about all of the people who have been, politely put, and regardless of why they have to take one, screwed over by this sham?

Chuckles, 

I have noticed your posts reflect you as the victim and the system is the offender.  It was my impression treatment helped you look at yourself and correct your thinking errors.   

Going to prison is a punishment for acts committed which are illegal.  Probation was designed to allow you the opportunity of seeking treatment and correcting your thinking errors without incarceration.   

Part of your treatment ordered by the court was to take and pass all components of treatment.  Polygraph was one of the components.   

I do hope individuals that have committed crimes will "see the light" and correct the errors they have made by not repeating them again.  I do understand there are different levels of sexual offenders, some, few, are a clear and present danger to society.   

That was a well written (if long) post grimdaddy. I wish more people would take the time to understand that there are different types of sex offenders and that very few of them fit the Jeffery Dalmer/Ted Bundy stereotype promoted by the media. I think the post conviction polygraph should be outlawed and I am in agreement with your reasoning. 

Another reason the polygraph for sex offenders should be outlawed is that it is so easily beaten by those who invest the time to learn countermeasures. If someone is a real villain the he will have no compunction over faking his way through treatment. Meanwhile the honest guys who are sorry for their crimes and are seeking rehabilitation would never dare research countermeasures, so they are at screwed when the poly gives inaccurate results. 

To those who say parolees and probationers have to either accept the supervision and treatment rules or else go to prison, I would just ask you to have a little compassion. People convicted of crimes are not so different from you or your children or other loved ones, but for the grace of God, there goes any one of us. A good number of people who argue for the elimination of the post conviction polygraph are not looking to "get away with" breaking rules and such. They just want to have a chance to rebuild their lives and go on to become productive citizens. Isn't that what we want for all criminals? For them to change their ways and go on to be better people? 

I committed a sexual offense and I was sorry for what I did and tried to cooperate with sex offender treatment, but all my progress and good will turned to dust when I was erroneously declared deceptive by a polygraph examiner. All my forward progress came to a halt and I ended up going to prison. If it weren't for some good peaceful friends and AA I would still be full of hate and a lust for vengeance against the system that I feel stole years of my life for no good reason. 

I can understand how painful sexual abuse is and like all of us I wish there was a way to reach out to sex offenders and help them see the error of their ways and help guide them into healthier life choices, but the polygraph is not the way. The polygraph disrupts forward progress in offenders who are earnestly trying to get better, while at the same time giving the unrepentant deviant a blank check to act out and offend as much as he wants, as long as he doesn't get caught again.

grimdaddy wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 2:04pm:


...

grimdaddy wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 2:04pm:


    I appreciate everything you have said.  Both like and unlike yourself, I was convicted of a sex offense alleged to have occurred some eight years ago.  I have maintained my innocence of this crime, and continue to fight to overturn this false conviction.  In my instance, my conviction was manipulated by corrupt officials protecting against a lawsuit I had filed against them, but the fact remains that I am a registered sex offender, like it or not.
    As a consequence of supervision, I am required to submit to a lie detector test.  However, I have taken two lie detector tests before in my life and failed both of them when I was telling the truth; The first occurred when I was picked up in the proximity of a burglary, and ended up being held overnight in an El Cajon, CA, jail for failing the polygraph (the guilty party was found the next day, and I was released), while the second occurred when I submitted to a voluntary test five years later in Bakersfield, CA.  In both instances, I was being truthful, and in both instances I failed.  I have not been diagnosed with a neurological disorder, but I clearly have a history of false negatives on polys.
    I am now being required to my first post-conviction polygraph, and to say that I am stressed that I will fail is an understatement.  I have been told that I cannot pass a lie detector, and twice have failed as support for this conclusion.  Yet, even knowing of my history, I am still being required to submit to a polygraph, and may likely have my probation revoked for failing it.
    Do you have any useful advice about any of this?
    BTW, if you would like more background on my situation, please feel free to read my blog at: http://monspiracy.blogspot.com
    Thank you in advance for any recommendations or assistance yo can provide.

It's the same retarded mentality that allows people in work release to be out of jail for the most part, but won't let them go to church. If you want church services, you can give up work release and go to (or go back to) jail, where you can avail yourself of religious services while incarcerated. If you're allowed to go to work, see a doctor, go to counseling, go shopping (with prior approval), what is the BFD about going to church on Sunday morning?

Don't pay attention to the knuckle draggers that think the Constitution is only for those not in trouble with the law. Choosing between jail and polygraphs is not the America I want to live in. Keep fighting and ignore the guys with wrinkles on their necks.

As far as I know, convicted sex offenders are not forced to submit to polygraphs.  They are only required to take/pass a polygraph if it is part of their supervised release.

If you truly believe the polygraph violates your rights, stay in jail.  There are no polygraphs required of inmates.  If you wish to obtain some form of supervised release (probation, parole, whatever) then you must abide by the terms your state has set for that type of release.  If you think those terms are unfair, stay in jail and then you won't have to abide by them.

Well, higher courts have ruled that the use of the polygraph with sex offenders are constitutional. However, you still have the right to invoke your 5th ammendment, although the 9th circuit court and supreme courts have not made it clear as to how much of that right still exists. Those convicted and placed on supervision loose rights such as 2nd ammendment rights and other rights are diminished, such as warrantless searches and the freedom to move and right to privacy.

I think that polys for post-conviction sex offenders should be outlawed for several reasons.
First, even though the offender has lost some, if not all of their pre-conviction rights, the polygraph has not been accepted by the scientific community as a valid and consistent method of detecting falsehoods under any circumstances.
Second, since the poly is not admissible in criminal cases, and imprisoning an offender would certainly be under criminal circumstances, the same standard should apply.
Third, while somewhat accepted as valid proof of inability to pass a poly, sex offenders are rebuffed or ignored when presenting medical documentation of any issue that may cause that person to fail a poly consistently, such as Panic/ Anxiety Disorder, syncope, or other neurological disorders or maladies.
Fourth, poly exam results are subject to individual interpretation, and, as such, cannot be considered valid on their face. If three or more examiners give the same interpretation on the exact same test, this may not apply.
Fifth, consistently failing every single question, including the control questions, should be more that enough proof that the individual taking the test is not testable, period.
Finally, I have been told by more than one poly examiner that the test relies strongly on the takers belief in their own innocence or guilt regarding the subject in question. If you harbor a sense of guilt over the crime you committed originally, that guilt will carry through on the poly results.
I say these things because I have failed every polygraph ever taken, including all but one of the control questions. the one question I passed on each one was the question where I was told to lie intentionally to provide a baseline for the test. 
Let me be clear. I am not, nor was i ever, a sex offender. Each of my tests has been job related, including one to be bonded for a newspaper job.
I suffer from Panic Disorder, which was diagnosed in 2003, along with photosensitive epilepsy. My neurologist told me that my disorder would cause me to fail polygraph and gave me a document outlining that for poly testers. I have been refused by every poly tester since then, and it has cost me gainful employment on more than one occasion.
I do know someone who is a registered sex offender. He was deemed to be a single offense molester. Even the court thinks he would never commit another offense, because it was a circumstantial crime against a single individual. He, too has failed every poly he has taken in the post-imprisonment period of years.
Because of the failed polys, they have threatened to re-incarcerate him repeatedly. I have stepped in on all but one of those times.I did not know him the first time it happened.
I accomplished this by way of threatening litigation. My background was the deciding factor.
I do have a long-standing history of peripheral involvement with law enforcement. I have worked security in some form or fashion for over two decades. I have studied law every chance I have gotten. I have established friendly connections of mutual respect within the law enforcement and judicial facets of government at every level.
Further, my other background involving sexual crimes is a huge factor as well. No, I have never committed a sexual crime.
My biological father molested my two oldest half-sisters, then, later, died in prison serving 3 life sentence plus for doing the same with two other little girls.
My oldest sister then molested me, and later, her own son. 
Two of my three nieces, and possibly the third, were molested first by their father, then by  boyfriend of one of my other sisters.
My current girlfriends daughter was molested by my girlfriends former boyfriend for three years while simultaneously slow-poisoning my girlfriend and physically abusing her son.
My girlfriend has been raped twice in her life. Once as a teen, the other later in life, not long before we started dating.
I, of all people, should have the utmost hatred and bias against any and all sexual offenders. 
Instead, I chose to look at each case based upon its own merits, and it has served me well.
I have also done extensive research into sexually based crimes and the motivations involved.
I can tell you for a fact that recidivism among sexual offenders is not as prevalent as some people would have you believe. This is a falsehood based on a limited number of offenders who meet a certain criteria.
There is more that one classification of sexual offender. There is the well-known, widely advertised predator, who, in all likelihood will repeat the offense time and time again.
There is also the one-time, circumstantial offender. These include, but are not limited to, just under legal age offenders with little age difference (hes 18, she is not yet 16), those that are sexually underdeveloped, those of low self esteem, and those who are unaware that the touch they are giving can be construed as sexual.
I am working on outlawing polygraph results being used to incarcerate probationed or paroled sex offenders..

Thanks, 
geimdaddy