I am a registered offender .  I was told last night in my therapy group that I will have to submit to polygraphs twice a year.  This is a new development in group, not something initially established when I started this program.  This has to be some violation of civil liberties, but the word for the ACLU is that they can do pretty much what they want, especially if it falls under the 'therapy' umbrella.  Oh yeah, I also have to pay for the test, hundreds of dollars.

Quote:


Considering that we know neither kingjames' offense nor the punishment he has received for it, I think we are in no position to judge whether he "got it pretty well off."

In any event, governmental reliance on such quackery as polygraphy under the guise of "therapy" should be of concern to all.

I'm not looking for sympathy, just trying to find out how much is too much.  It seems to me that if a polygraph is not an absolute science then it is a waste of time for all involved.   

Say they give me a poly and the test says I am lying.  What is their recourse?  They could monitor me more, restrict me more, but other than that what else?  Seems like over doing it for a low level offender.

I reached this website in an effort to find my rights as well as to get more info. as to what to expect.   

I am a registered sex offender also and served 12 years in prison for my conviction, although i was innocent, no one wants to listen.  I was accused of molesting my daughter and i daughter will tell you it was all untrue.  however, i did 12 years in prison.  Now on parole, the agent demands me to take a polygraph for therapy.  the therapy demands i sign waivers to be tested and one of the tests is poloygraph.  The therapist insists that the program is "voluntary" but when i refused the program (mainly because the parole officer sit in the therapy, negating it's therapeutic value)  I was told either to sign the paper voluntarily or be subject to a parole violation and sent back to prison.
I used the information at this site with the premise that "tis not deceit to deceive the deceiver"  The information at this site told me exactly everything that was going to happen.  To my surprise it was like I read the whole script at my polygraph test.  Not only was the polygrapher trying to be my friend, they told me I failed the test miserably and then tried to extract a confession.  Sorry, but I cannot confess to something I did not do.  I really dont give a damn if I dont get any sympathy from this forum, the main focus is the voodoo science utilized and how the California Department of Corrections has ganged up with therapist to extract confessions.  Confess or be sent back to prison.  What kind of society are we living in?  I did my time so dont try and say i got off easy.

mksdk wrote on Jan 19^th, 2007 at 8:08am:


To draw parallels between people who have been convicted of a sex crime and people who are persecuted because of race, ethnicity or gender is inane...

The use of the polygraph with sex offenders is driven by a societal need to prevent future offending. I oppose the polygraph because it's pseudoscience and gives a false sense of security that these criminals are being adequately monitored. But however flawed the current methods of supervision, sex offenders should be monitored because they have demonstrated the fact that they are a threat to society. How we monitor them is an empirical question where answers to it should be based in science rather than wishful thinking... 

Rather than bemoan the fact that you're being supervised and surveilled, how about taking responsibility for the reason why you're in this situation, then maybe you can start to fix whatever is wrong with you...

kingjames wrote on Jan 21^st, 2007 at 4:05am:


Firstly, your question misdirects away from my point. I didn't differentiate among the sex crimes because monitoring and surveilling of sex offenders (whatever type of sex crime they've been convicted of) is something that is decided by legislators. When you're tasked with coming up with a monitoring plan, you classify offenders through various means (psychometric, past history, likelihood to reoffend, etc.) so that you can devote your time to the most serious offenders.

Secondly, your question is silly. What if the 16-year-old was developmentally disabled, drunk, or otherwise impaired? In addition, age of consent laws come into play and I'm not familiar with all of the state statutes in the U.S. but the typical age of consent is 16 so your example is also ill-formed. What if in your example the male was 50, do you consider a sexual relationship between a 50-year-old male and a 16-year-old female wrong? What about an 18-year-old male and a 13-year-old female? What if they were brother and sister or father and daughter? Again, the acts that are deemed criminal are decided by our elected officials. If you have a problem with a particular act being classified as a crime, take it up with your local representative.

As for monitoring a 21-year-old man who has been convicted of statutory rape, it would depend on his past criminal record, whether or not he has been classified as a Level I, II, or III sex offender, and other predictive factors. 

I'll turn the question to you since you're so outraged that a 21-year-old man who's been convicted of statutory rape would be monitored. What should the age of consent be? 15? 14? 11? Where do we draw the line between adulthood and childhood?

How many poly supporters would let their daughter accept a ride from a stranger who had just "passed" a polygraph test that determind that they were being truthful when they said they would not harm her in any way?

I wouldn't.

"No child's safety is or should be put into risk by a polygraph test that ...."

But isn't the point of follow-up polygraphs of SO's exactly that.  If you don't trust polygraphy in the case of someone that you have no reason to suspect is an offender, then what's the point of applying it to a convicted SO?  Why trust it for them?