Gee, I guess this means you will be out of a job soon, since even convicted rapists can pass polygraphs. Don't worry, I'm certain you can find rewarding and lucrative work in either the food service or janitorial industries.

The funny thing is, I was being quite sincere. Don't like my observation about you libeling the site owners? Well. . . . I don't much care.

Grow up for pete's sake.

L72cueak,

Perhaps it is time for governmental agencies that use polygraphy in an attempt to monitor the behavior of probationers and parolees to reconsider their reliance on this pseudoscience?

Quote:


Let's hope his therapy is working. Sex offenders have a notoriously high reoffense rate. My prayers are with him.

Quote:


If anyone could be held civilly and criminally liable--other than the person commiting the crime-- I would think it would be the civil servants and law enforcement officers charged with insuring the sex offender stays true to the conditions of his probation/parole and does not reoffend. They are the ones that are being derelict by relying on both the assertions of the polygraph community that the polygraph is 98% accurate (etc.) and by relying on a system that is a total sham and is easily defeated by both honest and dishonest people. To quote one of the more notorious defeaters of the polygraph:

the polygraph is a scientific godsend: the bureaucrat accounting for a bad decision, or sometimes for a missed opportunity (the latter is much less often questioned in a bureaucracy) can point to what is considered an unassailably objective, though occasionally and unavoidably fallible, polygraph judgment. All that was at fault was some practical application of a "scientific" technique, like those frozen O-rings, or the sandstorms between the Gulf and Desert One in 1980. 

Been a while since i visited this site and i just happened upon this post.  I would first of all like to say that NO I AM NOT REOFFENDING!! If you had probation officers as diligent as i have you would understand.  But this is not a forum to discuss my morality or my offense, but rather to discuss one of the methods used to ensure that sex offenders do not offend.  When i say i "passed with flying colors" what i meant was that the polygrapher said that i was very honest.  I had nothing to hide to begin with.  I have never denied anything that i did, and i am willing to do whatever it takes to assure society that i am not a predator.  However, i do take offense at being required to pay for a test ($225) that is based on a lie!  The issue at hand is that the lie detector is an unreliable "test" at its best and has no place in determining the truthfulness of job applicants, suspected criminals, or the rehabilitation of sex offenders.  I will play devils advocate and say, what if i were a predator and was using countermeasures to beat the test?  In what esteem would you hold the lie detector then?  Obviously from the posts that i have read from the Pro-polygraph community, you would not be to happy about that.  What i am eluding to, is what place does a test that relies on the subject believing a lie have in our society?  None.  It does not belong.  There is a reason that polygraph results are inadmissable in court.  Think about it.

Quote:


beech,
Perhaps you would like to share some valid data on recidivism rates with us to support this? Or maybe you've been victimized by statistical manipulation like the rest of the country? Allow me to present a relevant example.

Data from the Michigan Board of Parole 1990-1998:
Sex Offenders Paroled - 3,735
Returned To Prison Same Offense - 99 (2.65%)
Returned To Prison Different Offense - 160 (4.28%)

Now the same data, with a twist:

Sex Offenders Returned To Prison - 259 
Returned To Prison Same Offense  - 99 (38.2%)
Returned To Prison Different Offense - 160 (61.8%)

You can see that the percentages have changed drastically. The first set is the correct way to calculate recidivism. The second set is voodoo statistics, and that 61.8% number is what the media uses to tell you that sex offenders have a high reoffense rate. In fact, the opposite is true. Sex offenders actually have one of the lowest reoffense rates of any class of criminal. The US Department of Justice, in the largest report on recidivism ever generated, found the incidence of sex offenders committing a new sex offense to be 2.5% in a study involving the 15 largest states.

Marty,
Unfortunately, recidivism data is not broken down sufficiently to extract the rate of re-offense for those who have committed an offense against a child. Additionally, many offenses that cause a person to be classified as a sex offender are not included in the "sex offense" category of crime statistics. Those would include indecent exposure, voyeurism, bestiality, etc. 
Most data on recidivism from law enforcement agencies and corrections departments involves crimes in the "sex offense" category of crime reporting. These are crimes that one would consider to be "heinous", like rape, child rape, forcible molestation, etc. Conversely, the recidivism data from mental health organizations tends to include all offenses that would cause a person to be classified as a sex offender.
Here are some of the best and most informative sources for data on sex offenses and offenders. The Bureau of Justice Statistics site is a real eye-opener about the relationships between sex offenders and their victims. And the 1994 study on recidivism is quite informative. Ncianet is a mental health/treatment organization, and eadvocate is a website covering a multitude of sex offender issues. Be prepared, as there is an overwhelming amount of information here. As for books to read, perhaps you should buy Judith Levine's book, "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex". While controversial in some respects, it is quite informative. 
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rpr94.htm
http://www.ncianet.org/comnot.html
http://www.ncianet.org/cns.html
http://www.geocities.com/eadvocate/issues/index.html