So, lying to your probation/parole officer isn't relevant? Polygraph aside George, is manipulating your supervising officer not relevant? I have not lied. Since you profess to know soooooo much about my profession, than perhaps you could tell me what is not relevant? Deviant sexual fantasies? Using Alcohol? Secret Contact with minors? Take your pick. If an Offender bites his tongue on any questions other than a sacrifice relevant and irrelevant, he is in deep shit.

Kalex wrote on Jul 27^th, 2007 at 2:21pm:


Sorry, i hit post and deleted some text.
Contnd...

The above questions are all relevant, and are used in the GKT protocol.
If the investigator did not know the key, they are all RQ's - if he did know,
then only one (the key) is RQ

In a searching POT protocol, all the questions will always be RQ's because
the investigator does not know the key and only the perp does. ie

Do you think marys body is in a river
................................... is in a lake
...................................... is buried

.................................... is in Texas
................................. is in Kansas
.................................is in mexico

You're welcome.

You don't have the foggiest George. Unlike other kinds of tests, many rules do not apply with pcsot. An example is the word "intentionally" which in other testing is not usefull, but in PCSOT testing is used regularly-----such as "Are you now intentionally withholding any (on-parole)contact with minors from me today?"



Many of us stopped using the sanctimonious control question cliche's of yesteryears. Control questions these days are very "hot." Quite simply, the clinical polygraph is powerful, and far less recognizable to examinee's than other types of tests. And no, I won't be shedding any light on test constructions for this crowd. aw shucks!

uh, ok. hmmmm. Whatever you say.

Digi, your question is presumptuous. "quarterly"?  nah. The tests are sequential and/or situational and are not like filing taxes. The examinee must continue manipulating other people---from test to test-----consequently, good behavior isn't immediatly (if ever) known. This proves to be difficult for Offenders to continue to engage in behaviors and indulging fantasies that are empirically proven to increase acute dynamic risk factors.

I am not here to educate, I am here to warn. The two deeds are mutually exclusive.

p.s. I address countermeasures and visits to this and other counterproductive types of websites and secret computer activity on tests. Gotcha! Instead of biting the tongue, maybe Offenders should bite their genitals. 

D-head, you clearly don't know a thing about sex offender treatment and supervision. What the hell does Playboy have to do with fantasies?! I was referring to deviant fantasies, not masturbating with Playboy.
Honestly, to even be posting on this board without some required reading and hands-on sex offender experience is laughable. Playboy? A sex offender in treatment knows better than to confuse deviant sexual fantasies and masturbating to Playboy. I thought that you were some sort of criminologist or something similar. Jesus H Christ.


serenity now


To answer your question. I don't know. Habituation is a great concern. It's amazing to me that you imply that I am deluded (yadayadayada) from previous posts and threads, and yet you ask questions of me that are better suited for researchers. I am not a researcher. If I read some empirical study about habituation that extends beyond a cautionary tale and is sex offender specific, at that time maybe I'll let you know. If it happens, I will probably be too busy adjusting protocol measures and polygraph modalities to align with said new research.


Why do I test for visits to this site and others? I am more interested in contact with children over all else but I really don't like some half-baked "recovering predator" messing with the charts. It's that simple people. Make a test look spammy with goofy untested and anecdotal countermeasures, and it pisses me and the rest of the team off. When my known countermeasure "attempters" (I have about 30ish at any given time)  so much as miss 1 group therapy or get so much as a speeding ticket, he goes back to prison, period. Offenders are better off failing their test than trying countermeasures. The stink of even a  "suspected countermeasure attempter" (verified or not) will hang around your neck like a dead goose----and will follow you in your "packet" (corrections record)for the rest of your life. I shit you not.
I don't want paroled/probationary sex offenders on the internet period----this site, amazon, myspace, you name it.

FYI, drug tests have countermeasures, so do we stop testing? Alcohol tests are very short fused (short spanned). 

Dear DHead,
how do you suggest we monitor sex offenders? Strap yourselves in folks, DHead is going to attempt to build a barn rather than burn one.

palerider wrote on Jul 27^th, 2007 at 7:07pm:
Because I referred to Playboy as pornography? Sigh...

palerider wrote on Jul 27^th, 2007 at 7:07pm:
You need to get some imagination...

palerider wrote on Jul 27^th, 2007 at 7:07pm:
Who gets to decide what's deviant? Playboy and many other men's magazines are considered pornographic by many correctional systems including California... 

Pornography, in its much wider sense, is any material - film, print, internet - that is used by an individual for titillation. Any number of paraphilias have their own material that no one else would consider to be pornographic such as foot fetishists subscribing to shoe catalogues. Heck, there are people who even get off on Sears catalogues. So how do you decide what's deviant? Oh, that's right, you use the polygraph to get them to admit to what they whack-a-doodle to. How do you know that they're telling the whole truth? Oh, that's right, the polygraph will reveal all...

palerider wrote on Jul 27^th, 2007 at 7:07pm:
Hope springs eternal that some are capable of learning from their mistakes...

palerider wrote on Jul 27^th, 2007 at 7:07pm:
I love it when you guys parrot treatment terminology to make it seem like polygraph is not pseudoscience...

palerider wrote on Jul 27^th, 2007 at 7:07pm:
Are you sure you caught all of the people employing countermeasures? And I thought you said countermeasures were ineffective. If they're ineffective, then how can they affect the test?

palerider wrote on Jul 27^th, 2007 at 7:07pm:
So how do you prevent them from accessing the internet when it has becomes so ubiquitous? Between iphones, picture and text messaging, and other emerging technologies, you're fighting a losing battle. Offenders also have a legal right to access libraries and other information sources...

palerider wrote on Jul 27^th, 2007 at 7:07pm:
Except that drug tests have actually been scientifically proven to detect the very thing they're trying to find and drug tests can be given sequentially without worrying about habituation or sensitization... 

palerider wrote on Jul 27^th, 2007 at 7:07pm:
Before one builds anything, one should make sure that the foundation on which they are building is firm. I think the majority of the containment method is fine except that its reliance on the polygraph undermines its effectiveness. So I'm trying to strip the polygraph from the containment method, decrease officer caseloads, and increase surveillance. The use of therapeutic communities has also shown great promise not only for sex offenders but also for drug and alcohol abusers...

As for the recalcitrant, incapacitation is the only solution be it civil commitment or incarceration...

Just an FYI, I'll be traveling the next few weeks and will only have intermittent access to the internet but I eagerly await your next barrage of vitriol, ad hom, and self-deception...