I'm being poly'd for an investigation into an allegation. I'm not here to debate my innocence or guilt.

The poly is about my sex history. It seems they have TWO relevant q's, one irrelivent, and tons of control q's. Does that make sense?

Do they often times only do two rel. q's instead of say 4 or 5?

Here are the questions:

Do you live in New Mexico?

Do you have any violations you have not told your parole officer about?

Do you plan to harm yourself in the future?

Were you completely honest about your sex history?

Do you plan to commit a sex offense?

Is there anything about your sex history you don't want authorities to know about?

Do you plan to engage in deviant sex in the future?

Do you lie to your wife?

Do you plan on being honest with your parole officer?

Have you had contact with potentional victims?

Any thoughts? I can only see two relevent question in there. The onea bout was there anything in yoru sex history and were you completely honest in your sex history....

Am I wrong?

It seems "do you have any violations" is too broad as well as have you had contact with potential victims. Too broad for relavent I think.

Thoughts?

Besides every time I hear of an exam from these people they seem to only have 2 questions they're using for R's.

jeffsaunders wrote on Nov 16^th, 2007 at 12:51am:


One could speculate about why you are to be tested, but to be fair,
the 5 questions above are potentially the most stupid I have ever seen.
One cannot 'test' a subject's intentions for the future.
Intentions can change an infinite number of times in a short space of time.

Mr. Truth wrote on Nov 19^th, 2007 at 5:26am:


Interesting. For those that don't know, a "Maintenance" exam is a test given to sex ofenders who are on parole or probation (living in the community) to try and ascertain the compliance of the offender with the rules of supervision--i.e. contact with children, drinking alcohol, ....you know, doing things that most people don't want sex offenders doing. One of the reasons that sex offenders are not allowed to have contact with children is that kids are so easily manipulated---and worse yet, if a child happens to sit on the lap of the wrong guy, that guy can recieve sexual pleasure---such an act is called "Frottage" (uninvited touching.) Of course there are many Offenders who secretly have contact with children---usually familial children, unbeknownst to authorities. Many Offenders are and have been married, and if they are the manipulater type, will play on the ignorances of those that believe that men who are sexually attracted to adults will not also be attracted to children. But going back to the contact with children issue---both "non-sexual and sexual contact", many Offenders regard such contact as their secret right, and such Offenders are usually of the very narcissistic variety (superbly selfish) in that they have unrealistic trust of their behavioral fortitude, despite a long history of grand thinking errors. Although not perfect by any means, polygraph is helpful in indicating Offender's who lie about such contact, as Frottage (for example) is a sexual crime that is very subtle. 
Going back to this notion of righteous indignation over treatment and supervision (including being polygraphed)---such self involvement is pervasive. It (superb selfishness) is demonstrated well in the above poster's anecdotal reply, as it seems many people who would sexually molest children are quite "into" themselves, and will readily martyr themselves as desperate attempts to divert attention to their past. Once more, we see Offenders characterizing their offenses as mere accidents----flukes-----a kind of whoops, "I accidentally had oral sex with a 7 yr old boy/girl" type of tresspass. Also, we see (saw) many Offenders lying (attempting) to lie about the age of their victim to their new group, despite the documents which proved otherwise. To be fair, there are many recovering sex offenders who do the right thing, and see their cohorts as being of the highest level of manipulaters in our society. Such higher thinking recoverers understand that in order to recover, they must start anew, and disregard old thinking errors that would toll the line of attempting to defeat a threat---namely polygraph. 

The original poster of this thread seeks to understand the differences in question value/ relevance of his test -----a test which is meant to try, despite test construct errors (all tests have them), to determine some risky behaviors in order to create a more robust report than what the Offender would decide to self-report---as I stated above---an oft times folly as the vast majority of sex Offenders are not known for their veracity and candor in the earlier stages of their treatment. Such is also proven true and documented in addiction therapy literature. 1904 added nothing but criticism of the questions of the polygraph examiner, not the question of the sex offender---the one who was proven (very likely) to have raped a woman or a child. The fact that he is even on the internet is a violation in nearly every state. Perhaps 1904 and others would feel differently if the Offender was on a "how to hypnotize a child" website or a "how to create a fake ID card" website.  And to cap off, the above threader tells a sad tale which is ultimately either a polygraph error which probably caused some temporary supervision sanctions---given that society is repulsed at letting sex offenders free, is hardly compelling as parole/probation is one giant ever changing sanction---or the offender went to a secret birthday party he wasn't supposed to attend, got a little sexually "moved" or was flooded with physical contact by virtue of  hugs/kisses---and tanked a test. We see this type of incident countless times. Either way, when it comes to kids, caution prevails and all know polygraph has weaknesses, but sex offenders have proven empirically to have greater acute dynamic risk behaviors than polygraph has errors.
I am not in love with Jeff's stated test questions, but they all seem quite relevant to me. I hope for the sake of Jeff's community he is on the straight and narrow path to recovery. Good luck Jeff and please get the F*** off the internet!

nopolycop wrote on Nov 19^th, 2007 at 3:20pm:


I don't understand your question after your last end-paragraph caveat. When a sex offender  fails a Maintenance polygraph, the general protocol is to conduct a more specific and formalized investigation. i.e. Fail alcohol----ya get your blood tested rather than urine---or maybe the Offender's home is searched thoroughly. Regardless, a failed polygraph is not good---and suspected countermeasures causes such alarm that every conceivable investigative tool, manhour, and expense is typically expended----much to the exhaustion of officials who already have full caseloads and limited time/resources.  Worse yet, the Offender experiences a higher level of suspicion---and every offender values a form of trust that is the precious and none-to-common commodity of a parolee or probationer. Last summer, an Offender was labeled as a "countermeasure suspect" for manufacturing phony arousals on controls and was consequently disallowed to attend the wake of his mother's funeral as there were to be children at the funeral/wake. This of course was agonizing to the Offender, and I imagine that his porn use, or contact with kids--whatever motivated him to use countermeasures, could not have been worth the heartache---barring that he had reoffended, an unlikely event for that individual. He could have done many other things besides his obvious but unadmitted attempt at countermeasures. He could have just turned in the dirty mag, admitted internet viewings---whatever---and that particularly well-liked and participative-in-treatment Offender would have been reprimanded, but certainly not restricted from attending the funeral wake as he had a thorough "protection plan"----a written plan and agreement of how he would conduct himself if risky situations were to present themselves---namely, kids. I no longer conduct polygraph testing, but I hope he has corrected his behavior---as he had great potential.