You pose an interesting question. I think the reason polygraphy has not been extrapolated to other crimes is because society is still in the dark ages with regard to sex offenders. There appears to be so much intrinsic hate for them, that violating their rights is "okay" in the name of protecting potential victims. Emotion aside, this argument doesn't past muster as most crimes involve some kind of victimization.

I'm helping an investigative journalist do some research for a book project that details some fairly extensive malfeasance on the part of the U.S. Probation Office, and during that research a question came up that I hope might be easy to answer here: 

Does anyone know of examples of people on federal "supervised release" who are NOT sex offenders (past or present), but who are required to do polygraph testing as part of some unspecified, undefined "therapy?"

The research I have done is coming up blank: it seems like the polygraph is the exclusive domain of sex offender supervision, at the Federal level. However, I don't want to make that as a factual statement in writing without doing my best to disconfirm it by finding even a single case of a non-sex offender who is required to polygraph with the Feds, post-release.

The story of how this polygraph is being injected, under the guise of unspecified "therapy," into a highly questionable federal case is simply astonishing. Hopefully, members here will be able to help nail down this part of the fact pattern.

Thank you for your help!