Marty,
You a right in that objectivity is very difficult to achieve in this area due to the extreme emotional reactions that most people have when they hear "sex offender". The politicians have already proved that.
I don't exactly advocate leniency for sex offenders. But I do think that the laws should either apply to all criminals or none of them. When was the last time you heard of a law that keeps multiple DUI offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any store or other establishment that sell alcohol? Or how about convicted car thiefs not living within 2,000 feet of a car lot? Probably never. But aren't the principals the same? Yes, the crimes are not as heinous as raping a child. But DUI offenders are notorious recidivists, as well as killers (on the road). And if somebody stole my '68 Shelby you can bet I would become severely traumatized emotionally. I know that sounds crazy, but I love that car. Not as much as I love my kids of course, but you get the idea.

OkieBoy,
Actually, no sex offense has what could be considered a "high" rate of re-offense.

Sex offenders released from prison have an overall 43.7% re-arrest rate, with 13% of those arrests being for another sex offense. The rate of re-arrest for another sex offense drops down to 2.9% when probationers are included in the count.

DUI offenders released from prison have an overall 51.5% re-arrest rate, with 32% of those arrests being for another DUI. The rub here is that in most states it takes 4-6 prior DUI's before a person gets sent to prison. In Florida it takes 4 DUI's before it is even a felony offense. I don't have any figures taking into account those on probation for DUI, but 60-75% of all DUI arrestees have a prior offense.

So actually, yes you can say that a DUI offender is more likely to re-offend than a sex offender is. But you don't see any of the state legislatures doing anything about it, simply because most of the legislators drink, and those campaign contributions come in handy at re-election time

orolan wrote on May 10^th, 2003 at 3:40pm:


Thanks for exposing these feminists statistical lies. I didn't have the time to post an example myself. 

We see these false statistics everywhere now and the public is widely victimized by the false statistics because of the draconian laws that are rapidly being passed nationwide. Notice how they are most always aimed at the male gender.

DIorNDI,

You liken polygraphic lie detection to a medical diagnostic test. Consider then, that which Dr. Alan P. Zelicoff, M.D., recently told the Albuquerque Tribune: "If we had medical tests that had the same failure rate as a polygraph, then physicians that use those tests would be convicted of malpractice."

DIorNDI,

I told the truth and DIDN'T pass my polygraph.  So, while the fact that you told the truth and did pass does not indicate that it's just you, the fact that I along with many others told the truth and didn't pass indicates that it's also not "just me."

I see one major flaw in your analogy of polygraph examiners/polygraphy to medical doctors/the practice of medicine:  in each of your examples, you fail to mention one thing.  These victims (or their families) of malpractice all have some type of recourse available to them.  Whether it be corrective surgery without charge to the more serious cases involving civil litigation, these people may suffer greatly and experience long-term trauma but in the end they have RECOURSE.

Indicate to us all what recourse a truly "honest" person found deceptive through a polygraph "test" has.  The opportunity to vehemently deny the implied or explicit accusations of deception?  And then what?  In the case of pre-employment screening, nothing.  Some are lucky enough to get a retest.  Many are not.  Many are then, as a result, precluded from employment by other agencies.  And again, what chance do they have to provide a reasonable defense?   

Those of "us" in the "victim by false positive" group have in many cases experienced significant trauma by committing to a process that one truly believes will result in the acheivement of a long sought after goal only to be denied this acheivement based on the opinion of one examiner operating a machine designed around an undeniably flawed, pseudoscientific theory that deception can ACCURATELY be detected by monitoring physiological response.  I imagine you are thinking at this point something similar to "mellodramatic BS, you don't get the job, so what?"  I invite you to ATTEMPT to imagine yourself being falsely accused of deception and then denied not only employment but the fulfillment of a goal and honestly admit that you would not be feeling the same way as many others do.  The comparison of losing life or limb to being denied employment does seem somewhat drastic.  But remember, you are the one who drew the initial comparison.

Your analogy fails relative to what this site strives to accomplish.  The polygraph exam, when used as a pre-employment screening tool, is an unfair, invalid and dangerous method used strictly to "sift" through otherwise qualified candidates in an effort to save the money that would have been used in a costly background investigation.  In fact, you are quite mistaken that a failed polygraph result is not used as a sole disqualifier.  Take the FBI, for example. Upon the submission and approval of the polygrapher's opinion that a candidate "failed" the polygraph exam, that candidate is issued a letter rescinding the conditional employment offer within ten days.  That candidate is typically not contacted before this occurs for an explanation and a background investigation DOES NOT occur.  So, you are in fact completely wrong in that the polygraph does not represent a disqualifer in itself.

Further, and again using the FBI as an example, the polygraph was not reinstated for pre-employment screening purposes until 1994.  Coincidentally, prior to 1994 the FBI also held a "zero-tolerance" drug policy that resulted in immediate disqualification should an indication that a candidate had used drugs be discovered during a background investigation. That's right, background investigation.  You ask, how does any given agency determine if what an applicant says is true? Your answer is through an in-depth background investigation.  It seems that it worked before, doesn't it?  Equally coincidental, upon adopting the polygraph as a phase of the applicant process, the FBI also eliminated its "zero-tolerance" drug policy with the realization that it is an unrealistic expectation.  And yes, FBI representatives have stated that as being the reason for the new policy: http://www.teenliberty.org/FBI.htm

The debates regarding lying vs. telling the truth, using or not using countermeasures, etc. are all secondary to the fact that pre-employment polygraph examinations should be abolished.  The "acceptable collateral damage" will continue to speak out.

Anonymous

You DO have recourse. (Stuck record again) File a federal suit and make them prove that you lied. As far as a failed poly being broadcast to all other LE agencies preventing one from getting employed as a LEO -- THAT IS BLACKLISTING. There are laws against this practice.

You people just keep on rolling over and playing dead and the polygraphers are just going to keep on burying you.

Anonumous

Reread the third paragraph of your response to DIorNDI. You specifically asked "what recourse,etc. etc".
 
I didn't single you out in the "roll over statement". I lumped you in with all the rest that complains on these boards about telling the truth and being called a liar by a polygrapher and not having the guts to defend your integrity.

You need to spend as much time studying federal law as I have before you call my statements bogus.

Your ability to comprehend seems to be lacking. I make reference to you personally only in the first sentence. The second sentence includes all the other posters that have claimed that a failed poly for a federal agency finds its' way to the other agencies. 

In conclusion, I don't give a damn whether you become a cop or not.

Anonymous

If you are not a politician, you have missed your calling. You do have a nack of rambling and twisting the subject matter. For example, your statement " I was AGREEING with you on the fact that blacklisting does not occur". Hell bud, I was saying and still say that it DOES occur.

If you have seen my past posts, you know that I can't give legal advice (or is that what you are trying to get me to do) because I am not a lawyer except for myself. I file pro se and win. The info you are asking of me can be found in any law library if one cares to research it.

As far the Mark Zaid suit - actions in the federal court system, nearly always, takes years. Just because YOU haven't heard any news lately doesn't mean that it is not still in progress. Mine didn't take that long because I won in the lower court and left little room for a viable appeal.

You are correct in one way though. Your post was not directed to me and I shouldn't have responded. All I was trying to say is that if (one's) integrity has been slandered, i.e. by being branded a liar by a polygrapher, (one) DOES have recourse if (one) chooses to do something about it.

BTW, it costs $150 bucks to file an action in federal court.