On January 24, 1980, in the City of Tacoma, Washington, Joseph E. Duncan , age 16, committed a burglary of a neighbor's home stealing four handguns and ammunition.  Later that same evening Duncan abducted a 14 year-old boy who had been walking in Duncan's neighborhood.  Duncan sexually assaulted the boy two times at gunpoint, burned him with a cigarette and made the victim believe he was going to kill him by pulling the trigger twice on an empty chamber. He was arrested shortly after the incident. Upon turning 17, Duncan was transferred into adult court where he pleaded guilty to Rape in the First Degree for the abduction and sexual assault of the 14 year-old boy and sentenced to 20 years in prison. 
   After serving 14 years in prison, Duncan was released on parole in September 1994 where his parole conditions included quarterly polygraph examinations. In late March 1997, Duncan took one of his routine polygraph tests in Seattle in which he revealed he had contact with his girlfriend’s two young daughters without his parole officer’s permission. The next day, Duncan absconded to California. Seven days later, 10-year-old Anthony Martinez from Beaumont, California was abducted outside of his home and later found murdered with evidence that he had also been sexually assaulted. Duncan was subsequently caught on a fugitive warrant and sent back to prison on his parole violations of illegal contact with children, a failed drug test, and absconding. A psychological review in 2000 found that while Duncan was a Level III high-risk offender, there was nothing to indicate that a civil commitment proceeding should be requested. In July 2000, Duncan completed his sentence and moved to Fargo, North Dakota where he registered as a Level III sex offender, free of correctional supervision.
   After his release, Duncan appeared to lead a normal life, working as a computer programmer and pursing a degree in computer science from North Dakota State University. In July 2004, an 8 year-old boy at park in Detroit Lakes, Minnesota was molested and Duncan became the prime suspect. He was subsequently arrested on April 5, 2005 and posted bond the same day. It was later revealed that the Minnesota judge who granted bail to Duncan had no knowledge of the severity of his previous crimes. After posting bond, Duncan fled Fargo and an arrest warrant was issued.
   On May 16, 2005 in Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, the bludgeoned bodies of Brenda Groene, her 12-year old son Slade, and her boyfriend Mark McKenzie were found. Missing were Brenda's two other children, 8 year-old Shasta and 9 year-old Dylan. A nation-wide Amber Alert was issued and nearly seven weeks after the murders and kidnappings, Duncan was apprehended at a restaurant in Coeur d'Alene with Shasta in his possession. It was revealed later that Duncan allegedly molested Dylan and Shasta repeatedly and taped these repeated assaults. Dylan's body was found a few weeks later at a campground in Lolo National Forest in Western Montana. Subsequent fingerprint analyses tied Duncan to Anthony Martinez's 1997 murder. Duncan is also suspected in a number of homicides and assaults in Washington State during his three years on parole between 1994 and 1997. In addition, Duncan kept an internet blog  detailing some of his travels and crimes in 2004 and 2005 and an encrypted diary in which he claimed to detail all his crimes.
   What went wrong to allow this sexual sociopath back into society? Clearly, lack of information sharing between jurisdictions, an overworked parole system, and lack of adequate monitoring were all culprits. What about his time on parole between 1994 and 1997? He failed one polygraph in which he admitted to having contact with his girlfriend's two children but his parole was revoked for his absconding and drug use rather than solely his unauthorized contact with children without permission. Note that this contact was not sexual in nature but merely unauthorized by his parole officer.
   The polygraph was a vital component in Duncan's supervision. However, it failed to detect his most serious offenses and instead focused only on minor violations. Its failure to detect serious violations contributed to Duncan's reoffending. Clearly, reliance on the polygraph in this case demonstrates the threat to public safety and underscores the folly of its use. How many other Joseph Duncans are out there that the polygraph missed?

nonombre wrote on Sep 10^th, 2006 at 6:27pm:


The polygraph is used for three specific areas in sex offender management. 

The first is specific issue testing and attempts to discern if there might be new allegations or specific issues of concern. There were certainly specific issues of concern with Duncan as he is suspected of a number of homicides and rapes in Washington state in the 3 years on parole which the polygraph failed to detect...

The second is sexual history disclosure testing to discern if there are other victims, victim selection behaviors such as specific age of onset, sexual deviancy, sexual compulsivity or public indecency activities such as voyeurism or public masturbation. No mention is made of whether the polygraph actually succeeded in detecting any of Duncan's additional proclivities...

The third is the maintenance and monitoring component to determine if the offender is complying with treatment and supervision protocols. Yes, the polygraph got Duncan to admit his contact with his girlfriend's children and his marijuana usage but it failed to detect his other more serious crimes, thereby allowing him to abscond and then murder Anthony Martinez. No mind-reading or psychic premonitions are needed to see that the polygraph failed to detect the risk that Duncan posed to society. So yes, I think that the examiner should bear responsibility for his failures and their outcomes...

So yes, it is a folly to use the polygraph in post-conviction settings just as it is in pre-employment screening...

And I'm not worried about a sex offender "failing" a polygraph, I worry about the ones that "pass" it. That's the true danger. The examiner failed to identify Duncan's more serious crimes, thereby "passing" him. The examiner fooled himself into thinking that he got Duncan to admit to all of his crimes. Duncan also would not have been revoked if he had not absconded...

nonombre wrote on Sep 10^th, 2006 at 9:47pm:


The other professionals relied on the results of the polygraph to make their decisions. If there had been better supervision rather than blind reliance on the polygraph, Duncan would have been stopped earlier...

How else should other professionals (i.e. parole officers) rely on the polygraph and the examiner in post-conviction use? Ignore the results? If it's to view it with suspicion, how much suspicion? At what point does a P.O. assume that the polygraph didn't find serious issues? Your field claims accuracy better than 95% in post-conviction use, doesn't this create a belief in those who rely on its results that it's accurate?

Its presumed usage and utility in post-conviction supervision is to find issues and dig deeper because it supposedly holds the ability to detect deceit. Since you're an examiner, do you or do you not believe in your instrument? Do you believe that your field should only claim its successes and ignore its failures? 

Face it, the polygraph and the examiner failed to identify the most serious issues in this case and other professionals believed in the results which created further tragedy, which is why reliance on this bogus instrument/test is a serious threat to public safety...

nonombre wrote on Sep 10^th, 2006 at 9:47pm:


Yes, I do, behold the power of the internet:

http://www.furl.net/members/Joe_Duncan_docs

Note the "failure" for his last polygraph before absconding and his "passing" all prior examination...

You can also read about the case in more detail from KREM2 News:

http://www.krem.com/sharedcontent/southwest/pecom/duncan/

nonombre wrote on Sep 11^th, 2006 at 4:22am:


You're the polygrapher, it's your machine and examination techniques that you and those in your field claim that it can uncover the truth...

nonombre wrote on Sep 11^th, 2006 at 4:22am:
 

Why do you engage in ad hominen attacks? You know nothing about my background which includes 7 years experience in correctional facilities working with offenders in addition to my education and research experience... 

I don't attack you, I attack your machine and your methods. Please respond in kind rather than continuously using logical fallacies and misdirection...

From your disparaging comments about academia and ivory towers it appears that you support ignorance and stupidity. Did you go to college? If so, do you or do you not think it made you a more educated person? Do you send your children to college? If yes, why when you seem to feel that it's a waste of time filled with pie-in-the-sky types and dilletantes?

nonombre wrote on Sep 11^th, 2006 at 4:22am:


Finally, with the exception of genital mutilation, you and I agree upon something...

nonombre wrote on Sep 11^th, 2006 at 4:22am:


You never mention your failures or their failures, what are you hiding?

nonombre wrote on Sep 11^th, 2006 at 4:22am:


As was stated above, civil commitment...



I do not doubt for an instant your and others commitment to your field and your belief that you're doing good. However, you need to get past your cognitive dissonance and read all of the research behind the polygraph, its sole utility as a bogus pipeline, and the threat it poses to society both in national security and public safety. Perhaps one day you and others like you will realize you've engaged in self-deception all of these years. However, I doubt it and I will do my best to get policymakers to realize the need to abandon this pseudoscience...

retcopper wrote on Sep 11^th, 2006 at 10:06pm:


Nice non sequitor, exactly which liberal judge was involved in Duncan's supervision? Post-conviction use of the polygraph was predicated by practitioners, not judges...

And how are my postings convoluted and ridiculous? Declarative statements without support are meaningless...

Nice ad hominen as I don't have a hate for polygraphers, I have severe distrust of the polygraph and an understanding of its dangers. I've read all of the literature around post-conviction polygraph use, including those that support it. I've also read all of the literature against polygraph testing and came to the conclusion that their arguments and proof were substantially more compelling. I also have an understanding of how the base rate problem undermines the polygraph regardless of accuracy and how serial testing causes increases in false readings... 

Have you read all of the literature or do you only seek out what supports your world view?

So once again, we have logical fallacies and misdirection. Please speak to the matter at hand...

nonombre wrote on Sep 12^th, 2006 at 2:49am:


What about the dozen other quarterly polygraphs which asked the same questions that failed to uncover his more serious offending? You've got one out of 12, it seems like a statistical inevitability to me that Duncan would fail rather than any true ability of the polygraph to detect deception. And Duncan only admitted to minor violations which would not have resulted in revocation...

And Duncan's drug use would've been detected by a UA, so his admission was moot...

Since you are in law enforcement, you do know that judges are not part of the parole process. It would've been a parole board who revoked him. Only probationers get revoked by a judge. Do you blame liberal parole boards?

Again, you make another ad hominen attack. But since you asked, what have I done for my community lately? Well, I worked for my former correctional agency this summer cleaning up addresses in a database to help parole officers more readily find current addresses for offenders in their caseloads via the internet to streamline their work. It saves manpower, which also allows POs to better supervise offenders. Other law enforcement also have access to this data. Wow, doesn't an increase in supervision ability mean an increase in public safety? Gee, I guess I'm doing alright...

And to summarize, I blame blind reliance on a pseudoscience for letting Duncan get away with more serious offenses that if they had been detected would have prevented him from continued offending. You can try to twist Duncan's story anyway you want to prevent your cognitive dissonance, but if more stringent supervision or civil commitment had been in place in 1997 instead of believing that he could be contained by flapdoodle, 6 and possibly more people would still be alive...

Quote:


George, 

That's exactly what I'm arguing in this case. Parole boards and parole officers have been sold that the polygraph can discover additional victims and perverse behaviors and determine whether offenders are adhering to parole standards and treatment protocols or committing new crimes.

The polygraph never detected Duncan's new crimes or other deviant behavior beyond minor admissions. There are thousands of offenders just like Duncan supervised on what is called the containment method which relies heavily on the polygraph because parole boards have been led to believe it works. 33 states use the containment method for supervising sex offenders. This is no different of a threat to public safety than mass screening of applicants or workers to find spies. You know what utility the polygraph has in those cases.

In addition, these offenders have become aware of the utility of countermeasures which in effect, reduces whatever bogus pipeline ability the polygraph may have had in getting admissions to violations to nil...

Do you see my argument now?

To answer your first question, authorities in Seattle and California are awaiting the outcome of Duncan's case in Idaho. If he gets the death penalty, the likelihood is that they won't try him because it's a moot point. However, if something else occurs, Duncan will probably be extradited to California...

-digithead

retcopper wrote on Sep 12^th, 2006 at 3:48pm:


I agree, but that's not the point...

As I said in my opening post, lack of information sharing between jurisdictions, an overworked parole system, and lack of adequate monitoring were all culprits. However, these happened sequentially. Fix the root which began by releasing Duncan and none of these future missed opportunities would have happened... 

However, his release was predicated on the belief that the containment method can control sex offenders. Since the containment method's main component is the polygraph, it bears responsibility for allowing him to reoffend while he was on supervision between 93 and 97 because it failed to discover his more serious violations...

It's no different from the JeffCo Sheriff's failure to execute a simple search warrant then allowed Harris and Klebold to murder 13 people at Columbine...

Hindsight may be 20/20, but you need to see what went wrong if you're trying to prevent future occurences...

And in the Duncan case, it demonstrates that reliance on pseudoscience can have tragic consequences...