pailryder wrote on Jul 16^th, 2016 at 3:17pm:

He's been convicted, he's repaying his debt to society, I'm sure he's following all the rules...and then suddenly he watched jurrasic park and he might go back to jail for it? Do you not see the injustice here? A punished man does not need to be perpetually phished over and over til they finally find something they nail him with. If its truly about the classes, the treatment etc...then the polygraph is antithetical to the entire process. It's like saying "here you're doing great in every possible regard...but we want to use a scam psuedoscience to find some reason to send you back to prison". This isn't conducive with rehabilitiation. In fact it probably promotes rebellion, obsconding and  going against probation even moreso. Becasue if you fail once or twice while telling the truth... then people might say FUCK IT I can't win even tho I'm doing everything right I still cant win so they get a case of the fuck its and do more illegal shit.

xenonman wrote on Aug 16^th, 2016 at 2:46pm:


True, one can not sink too much lower than being a polygrapher!  

It's about one step below being a necrophile 

Polygraphs are only effective if the person being tested believes in their validity. Going in with that mindset, and after several iterations of no deception indicated/inconclusive/deception indicated on mutually exclusive scenarios over most of a year, it became quite obvious to me that the polygraph is complete bullshit. It is a money making scam for a parasitic cottage industry. I know the test can be beaten, and quite easily at that. As a test, I viewed some porn and then lied about it on an exam. I lied to beat the lie, so to speak. I did not lie about anything else, nor did I lie about what I did. Of course, admitting that I lied opens the door to impugning everything else I say, but whatever. If you've been in my shoes, you know what I'm talking about.

But, having to do community service while on probation for not having passed a maintenance exam (have you had sex with anyone else other than your wife during date to date, NDI, and on the same "exam" getting inconclusive on have you had sex with anyone under the age of 18 during the same date window - really, how do you "pass" a question that covers the one question and fail the other question?) exposed the complete lunacy of the polygraph. Being accused of lying when you know you are telling the truth - how do you think a person is going to respond after being "consequenced" for not having passed the exam? You know, I surrendered, went belly up, totally submitted, and then you continue to kick me after that? So yeah, that is how I came to find out about antipolygraph.org a long time ago (and I've been out of the system for over a decade now, minus the exception of quarterly registration because what I did is such a friggin' danger to society? hardly).

With that said, for the OP, you fucked up for a stupid reason. Why put yourself into a situation like this? If your T&Cs are do not watch a particular type of movie, then don't fucking watch them. What is so hard to follow/understand about that? It's not like you got bent over for not passing an exam when you were telling the truth. In this case, you were stupid for not following a simple rule. 

Here is a little tip: your best defense/survival strategy is not to give them (i.e., your containment team) any ammunition to use against you. I wasn't allowed to consume alcohol. Alcohol didn't have jack to do with my offense, in fact, I hardly drank in the first place. But being told I couldn't have a simple glass of beer, WTF is the point of that? But, why drink and run the test of being caught on a UA? Grow up and follow the rules. The sooner you realize you are not in charge of your life (while you are under supervision), and be mature enough to follow the rules, regardless of how stupid they seem, the better off you'll be. You really can't fight city hall on this one. The system is heavily stacked against you. Choose your battles wisely. This is not one of them. Trust me.

Ex Member wrote on Aug 7^th, 2016 at 7:55pm:


Well, "Jurassic Park" DID include frank discussion of the reproductive habits of some dinosaurs!   

Quote:


A movie that would be rated "PG-13" would not have achieved that rating for sexual depictions!   

Dan Mangan wrote on Aug 8^th, 2016 at 3:08pm:


True, one can not get too much lower than being a polygrapher! 

Ex Member wrote on Aug 8^th, 2016 at 2:44pm:


SOT is not a waste of time insofar as it placates an ignorant public. In Wisconsin, SOT is mandatory after prison even when an individual has successfully completed treatment in prison and is recommended for aftercare. As long as the public feels safe, it doesn't matter if it works or not. That is another reason why so's have stupid rules that only apply to the most hardcore pedos. Just like Dr. Abel says about his visual response tests in court when judges deride him for their use - 'it's better than nothing'. If the public knew that about 94 percent of sex offenders never reoffend, ALOT of people would lose money or be out of business. Polygraph examiners, for one.

In any event, YES, they should be treated similar to other criminals - on a case by case basis. That is the way it is supposed to work, but it does not. I bet waldenrefugee hasn't been out of jail/prison long, or else his p.o. wouldn't be so gung-ho about pg-13 movies... or, he hasn't behaved so they havnt lifted restrictions. That is the modus operandi in WI.

Ark, I'm not an expert, just a lowly polygraph operator.

As for being taken seriously, you're right: only one in four voting APA members does so.

Regarding SOTx and polygraph, my observation is that too many therapists -- and probation/parole officers, for that matter -- buy into PCSOT mythology hook, line and sinker. How are these educated professionals so easily swayed? Propaganda is one reason.

According to the APA's own web site, "APA examiners are able to attain accuracy rates exceeding 90 percent."

Gosh, Mrs. Cleaver, that sounds too good to be true!

The predictable collateral damage stemming from such exuberance is significant, in my view.

Dan Mangan wrote on Aug 8^th, 2016 at 1:20am:


Dan you sure are a snarky little knot head. Instead of sharing some of your experience to further the conversation, you in act like a bratty little Eddy Haskell. This is why few of your peers take you seriously. It seems to be especially annoying to you that someone who has never been to polygraph school knows more about the subject than you do.

Quote:

So sex offender treatment is all a total waste of time and society should just treat them the same as all law breakers? 

I like would like to hear the viewpoints of others.

Ex Member wrote on Aug 7^th, 2016 at 7:55pm:

   
Fast fact: on the questionnaire that is given to SO'S before they take the sexual history polygraph for the Wisconsin DOC, it asks if the test-taker has had any sexual contact with minors as an adult... but then says 'if the person was within three years of age of you at the time, do not list this person'. The Wisconsin Department of Corrections doesn't seem to think this is exploitive or a crime worth reporting, even for a stupid screening polygraph... even for an 18 year old to sleep with a 15 year old. Think about that.

Aaaaannnd.... who says waldenrefugee doesn't take his treatment seriously? Once again, an assumption on your part. 'He watched a pg-13 movie... therefore, he doesn't take his treatment seriously'. You have what sot therapists call 'all or nothing' or 'Black and white' thinking... which is a pretty serious cognitive distortion. Shades of grey everywhere, ark. Do you even know what therapy entails? Every single aspect of therapy is specifically geared towards the worst of the worst, despite the fact that there are guys like waldenrefugee in every group, right along with serial offenders/pedophiles. A lot of that stuff doesn't even apply to everyone... hence the treatment motto 'if it doesn't apply, let it fly'. Ammonia sniffing to condition yourself to not think of kids inappropriately is not for everyone, for instance... nor are thought logs/masturbation logs. There is a term they use, SUDS: Seemingly Unimportant Decisions, and an example they use; they say 'going outside to smoke a cigarette can lead to reoffense'. How, you ask? 'You go outside to smoke a cigarette, you see a cute girl walk by, you get horny, you follow her and rape her'. This is an example used by a certain therapist I know... do you think this applies to a very young man who stuck his dingus in a girl with permission who is factually legal to sleep with in more than half the states in our country, and who the Wisconsin DOC discounts as a victim for treatment purposes? Of course not. But, you refuse to see shades of grey, and have no clue what therapy entails or who it is even geared for specifically. I agree that you may not be biased, but you certainly do not have enough facts - either about waldenrefugee or SO'S in general - to be forming opinions.

For the record, the recidivism rates for offenders who complete treatment and don't is about the same... which, as I earlier posted, is the lowest recidivism rate as a group for any crime except murder.

Ex Member wrote on Aug 7^th, 2016 at 7:55pm:



Hey Ark, let's get real.

In your own words, you "don't have a clue" as to whether such treatment works or not.

Have you ever considered that SOTx can be counter-productive?

By the way, Ark...Where's me Lucky Charms?!

I do not believe the issue is solely about jail time over viewing Jurassic World. 

Having sex with someone "on the wrong side of 17" is exploitative. 

Encouraging sex offenders to take a positive view of their treatment is not being biased. I do not consider myself a biased person and am open to fair criticism and subsequent self-sanction if valid discrepancies can be brought to light.

... who said he exploited anyone? Who says he is minimizing? You 'percieve' he's in a dark place? Where are the 'many' indiscretions that you intuit that aren't actually posted?

Basically, what you just did was deny that you are biased, then immediately afterwards, put that bias on full display for all to see. You extrapolated the worst possible thing that you could out of waldenrefugee's post... and why? Because he's an SO, you are biased against them, and you are just as ignorant as the general public on the issue. Thank you for illustrating my point for me perfectly.

I'm out.

*drops mic*

Dan Mangan wrote on Aug 7^th, 2016 at 2:43am:


You are hallucinating Dan. I have never been to polygraph school, I have never been to an APA meeting. I am an engineer working with instrumentation. Chill out. And to answer your question, yes, I do not know if SO treatment works or not. But, I can still urge those in a pickle to put a good foot forward and see if the therapy can help them make better decisions. And, hidden in my sarcasm was a thread of truth--you are an expert in this area and your contributions would be meaningful to the discussion.

Quote:


So there is nothing wrong with guys who exploit teeners into having sex? They were just sowing their wild oats and the system is just out to get them? And myself and society have it all wrong? Therapy is just a waste of time, except for bringing in money, and these fellows will be just fine if we leave them alone? I am not being sarcastic, I want to be sure I have your perspective correct.

Now if you go back and read waldenrefugee's original post, I do not see the issue as having watched Jurassic World; that was the minimization. Although lacking much detail, I perceive the post as indeed being in a dark place having the burden of many indiscretions and seeking a means to avoid detection. This is diverse from using countermeasures to avoid the chances of a false positive.

Ark... the guy is not sitting in a dark corner scheming to get one over on his therapist and PO.  He is trying to educate himself on how to live a normal life despite the system painting him with the same brush as the worst of the worst. Watching 'jurassic world' is not a crime, and he should not receive consequences  for watching it. Justify to us why he should be sanctioned or go to prison for watching that movie.

Your whole view is skewed.  Your 'sitting in a dark corner scheming' comment shows bias. An alphabet soup agency candidate trying to cover up past misdeeds by beating a poly shows more deviance than a guy who made a mistake trying to 'get away with' watching Jurassic World. I have read quite a few of your posts over the years, and you show bias towards so's. It is clear that no matter what they say, or whatever their cases are, you always resort to thinking that anything they do is a result of the same flawed thinking that ended up with them offending in the first place. For all the knowledge you seem to posess, you are just as ignorant on the SO issue as the public is.

Keep dodging, you faker.

I'm sure you are deeply connected to the polygraph indu$try.

If you aren't, why not step up and identify yourself?

[cue crickets]

Finally got your goat. 

Keep aiming for that bully pulpit.

A most clumsy dodge.

You, sir, are a faker.

Get the hell out of here.

Dan,
How about contributing to the conversation instead of popping in and out like a leprechaun posting questions then disappearing? You are the full APA member with the Certifications, who worked years as a PCSOT polygraph expert.

Take it way....

Ark, let me play devil's advocate...

You said in a recent post that you "don't have a clue" as to whether SOTx programs work.

Yet, you have repeatedly implored SOs to work their program.

There's a disconnect there.

I spent over five years polygraphing SOs behind the prison walls. So naturally, I'm curious...

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to your unwavering support for SO "treatment."

Quote:

I'm confused. Where did I state my position on sex offenders? I only proffered that someone who has been arrested for having sex with a minor would be wise to correct their distorted thinking, otherwise they risk a life of incarceration. I have seen minor girls who I consider sexually attractive, but I do not engage in cognitive distortions which would lead to exploiting them. 

Doc and George's position is that therapy is intrinsically flawed and futile if the polygraph is a component of the treatment model. This may be true, but I stand by my original point that I'm uncomfortable with waldenrefugee being in a dark place spending time scheming on how to get over on his therapist and PO--it is not a good place for him to be. But, then again, I'm a pocket protector using engineer and psychology may just be a bunch of bullshit for all I know...

.... sex offenders, as a whole, have a lower recidivism rate than any other crime category except murderers (5.3%). Ark buys into the media hype; his position on SO's seems to stem from that.

That being said, just because a therapist or p.o. says 'don't watch jurassic world', and someone does, that means that person is ripe for reoffense?

Therapy tends to center around where the person was at in terms of mental state and cognition around the time of the offense. The cycle - which identifies triggers and red flags and all that good stuff - leads to a relapse prevention plan that helps offenders identify high-risk situations to stay away from, thus preventing the offender from putting himself in a position to be in the frame of mind to offend again... and it all works. Watching a pg-13 movie has nothing to do with that at all.

Where I am from,  no offenders are allowed to own vans. Why?  Because someone, somewhere, at least one time,  raped someone or abducted a child in a van. Nevermind the fact that someone who had sex with a 16 year old when he was 19 has nothing to do with this... they take the worst cases possible, and apply those restrictions to everyone. That's the media hype. Probation and parole put these stupid rules in place to placate an ignorant public... and Ark seems to be buying into that hype with his nonsensical statements. Putting people in prison for watching pg-13 movies is horrible policy, no matter how you try to justify it.

Indeed, some of the posters here seem to fit that profile if you ask me.