Post conviction polygraphs, in must States, can not be used as evidence of probation violations. So don't concern yourself with it. Thats the worst thing to. 

The poly is nothing more than a psycological poly designed to induce an admission of wrong doing. You will must likely be told " You showed deception on the question concerning........ can you explain this to me?"

Look the man straight in the eyes and say "I'm sorry but I answered all your question truthfully is there anything else you care to ask of me? Ok, thank you very much and have a nice day. Than get up and leave.

In other words present a don't give a shit, it doesn't really matter to me kind've attitude. Now remember if you have been deemed deceptive the results may not be used to prove a violation of probation, thats not to say your PO will not make you life hell. 

But so what cause your clean and really trying to put your life together. Right?

sie wrote on Jul 20^th, 2003 at 11:39am:

I havent drank in a long time, and I am doing better in school this quarter. Sounded like you were being sarcastic, just to let u and everyone know, there are a few good people, and people who really are trying to set things right that fear lie detection. 

Sam,
Great that you have "mended your ways". Take your polygraph with confidence, and don't buy any of that "you had trouble with #5" BS the examiner is liable to give you. And again, don't hang around for the interrogation. Good luck

Batman,
Nice to see that you haven't lost any of your wit and charm in your absence
Welcome back.

Sam,
Quote:

The point of the polygraph is the state wants you to admit that you have a problem, and face it head on. Sort of like going to AA and doing the "My name is Sam and I'm an alcoholic" thing. So they use the poly to scare you into admitting that you have this problem. Ostensibly they only want to help you, thus the general restriction on using the results for a VOP. That's where the intent of the Legislature and the desires of the Dept. of Corrections part company.
I can find no reference in the RCW to polygraphing probationers. RCW 9.95.210 provides for various conditions, none of which include polygraphing. The statute goes on to say "The secretary of corrections will promulgate rules and regulations for the conduct of the person during the term of probation." However, I find nothing in the Administrative Code showing where the DOC has promulgated any rules governing probationers.
The Administrative Code, at WAC 381-40-110, does however contain parole conditions, one of which is:"As a term and condition of parole, the board may impose a requirement that the parolee take a polygraph examination." This same paragraph goes on to state "Failure to pass the polygraph examination shall not be a basis for parole suspension or revocation."
Since you're not on parole, the above theoretically wouldn't apply. But parole and probation are controlled by the same state agency, and supervision is by the same people. In the absence of a codified procedure governing polygraphs for probationers, a court should look to a similar situation for guidance. That would be parole conditions.
As for evidence in probation revocations, the prosecution has only to prove the violation "by the preponderance of the evidence", rather than the more restrictive "beyond reasonable doubt" used in criminal court. Preponderance just means that the prosecution's evidence must be more believable than your defense, regardless of how implausible it may be.
If you have further doubts, seek out an attorney (not a public pretender!) and see what they think. Might cost you $50.00 for a consultation, but it would be worth it to know.

Saidme,
You really should come out of your little poly room once in a while and see what is happening in the rest of the world, particularly in your own chosen field of expertise.
Post-conviction maintenance polygraphs are given primarily to those whose convictions are related to drugs, alcohol or sex. All three of these areas involve compulsions and addictions that the offender may not be willing to admit to themselves they have, let alone to others. The polygraph is used to try to gain this admission, if there is one to be made, and it is simply another tool in the therapy process. 
One statute, related to sex offenders, reads as such:"As part of a treatment program, participation at least annually in polygraph examinations to obtain information necessary for risk management and treatment and to reduce the sex offender's denial mechanisms." This is the prevailing attitude amongst therapists and legislatures, and this is why many states have maintenance polygraphs. They aren't giving them to solve as-yet undiscovered crimes. The trouble with the maintenance polygraphs is they are similar to the tests given for pre-employment screening. With no known specific incident to investigate, it becomes a "fishing expedition" full of very generalized questions related to the underlying conviction.

As for Sam, yes his conviction identifies a problem. He assaulted a police officer. So do plenty of other people. And yes, he should serve out his probation sentence as required. I don't advocate anything different. 
The fact that Sam was under the influence of alcohol at the time is the issue here. Does Sam have a drinking problem? Is he an alcoholic? Was the situation one of having a bad day combined with having a few beers with the guys after work? We don't know the answers to these questions. Neither does the state. Hence the treatment program. If Sam is an alcoholic or susceptible to performing acts of violence while under the influence, the treatment program is supposed to identify those issues and get Sam to acknowledge them to himself.
Your comment about throwing open the prison doors makes absolutely no sense in respect to my post. I don't see anything where I advocated that Sam or anybody else be excused from serving their sentence. I suspect you are upset because I did advocate that he avoid your precious post-test interrogation ???
Maybe you have been out of the loop too long. You should take a few refresher courses in criminal psychology, as things have changed since the 70's

Saidme,
Knowing they are subject to periodic polygraphs may work as a deterrent for sex offenders, and I believe it does. The structure of the examinations needs some work, but that is for another thread. 

In the case of drug and alcohol abusers, I don't see it offering any more of a deterrent than the standard random UA requirements. While easily defeated with advance warning, UA's are impossible to beat with regularity when given at random places and times. And in Sam's case the polygraph would hold no deterrent value, since he was not told in advance that he was subject to take one.

I am not in the rehabilitation or corrections field. You would be quite surprised to learn what I do for a living. 

I understand that you are not into rehabilitation and you and your fellow criminal investigators care not about the underlying reasons for a person's crime. As you say, you want to get a case before the jury. That's fine. 

Sam has already been before the jury (or entered a plea). The investigation is over, and he has now entered the rehabilitation phase. So the underlying factors are now important, not to an investigating officer, but to his probation officer and therapist.

It does not bother me that investigators get people to confess to crimes. Nor does it bother me that they use a polygraph machine to do it. After all, the polygraph is more humane than some other interrogation methods in widespread use in today's world. I am as pro law-and-order as the next guy. 

What does bother me is that most of you refuse to admit that the machine does absolutely nothing. I have no doubt that your confession rate would not drop very much if you simply turned the machine off and conducted your examination and interview as usual. The examinee's fear and belief that the machine is telling you every time they lie is what makes the confessions possible.

And no, I'm not in a correctional institution, group therapy, rehabilitation program or any combination thereof