In order not to hi-jack the other active thread, I will start another, but the question stems from the other thread.

What occurs to a SO who fails a polygraph which he is compelled to take as a condition of his treatment?  For purposes of this discussion, lets not go into any confessions induced as a result of the polygraph test, but instead simply a failed test where the convicted SO states he is not lying.

Thank-you Mr. Truth, for answering my post.  It appears that many of the poly examiners simply want to cut down George, or argue with Sarge.

The reason I asked the question to begin with, is that D. Taylor and others have been making it sound like this site and George Maschke are directly responsible for allowing child molesters and other sex offenders to roam the streets of America and ply their anti-social behavior.  I have not quite figured out how the poly examiners can on one hand say that counter measures don't work, and on the other hand chastise George for explaining how to use them, but that has been already asked and never answered.

Anyway, I would have thought that a failed polygraph would send one back to prison, but it doesn't appear to be the case.  The miscreants are allowed to continue to live in society, (based on what you have said) regardless of a failed polygraph.  With that in mind, it doesn't appear that the passed or failed polygraph is responsible for keeping the child molesters in our society.

Again, thank-you Mr. Truth.

One thing I think should be made clear at the start of this discussion is that it is not the job of the polygrapher to bounce sexual offenders back into prison. 

No polygrapher gets to decide who goes back to jail and who stays out. Their job is simply to help the treatment provider and parole/probation officer monitor the behavior of the Sexual Offender to insure that they are responding to treatment and following their court ordered conditions of release. If a Polygrapher reports that a Sexual Offender is having problems with a drug question, the result would most likely be increased frequency of UAs. If a polygrapher reports that a Sexual Offender is having problems with questions regarding pornography, then the treatment provider might direct more treatment sessions in that direction and ask the probation/parole officer to conduct a surprise inspection. If a polygraph discloses a new offense, the Sexual Offender still enjoys all constitutional protections afforded any criminal suspect. 

One plain and simple truth is that Sexual Offenders who are taking polygraph exams,  VOLUNTARILY sign a CONTRACT agreeing to do so as a condition of their release. This is different than a treatment contract.  The implication of that contract is that they will be cooperative in the enforcement if all conditions. Regardless of the outcome of a polygraph test, if they attempt countermeasures they are violating their contract. They do have options. More than one Sexual Offender has decided to sit out his sentence so he wouldn’t have to deal with parole conditions. The Quid pro quo (sorry useless Latin syndrome) is that they get out of jail by agreeing to follow the rules in the contract. 

One other plain and simple truth about Sexual Offender's is that the vast majority CAN be helped through treatment and if they are successful, they are no more likely to re-offend than anyone else. In order for this treatment to be effective there can't be much tolerance for aberrant behavior. Sexual Offender behavior must be monitored and controlled either on probation/parole or inside prison. Probation/Parole gives them an opportunity to prove they can make it on the street.  Polygraph, Probation/Parole, and Treatment providers all work together in this process. 

One of the advantages of this treatment model is it really helps identify the relatively small number of Sexual Offenders that are either untreatable or refusing to accept treatment. (One might compare this to the number of alcoholics that are successful at not drinking and those who just can't stop) Yes, this process tries to send them back to prison in order to protect the public. 

One more plain and simple truth is that it is in the financial interest of the treatment provider and the polygrapher to keep the Sexual Offender out of prison and in compliance because when one is returned to prison they cease to generate revenue. One might argue that Probation and Parole may have an incentive to send them back because it shifts their heavy case loads back to prison staff. 

The last plain and simple truth that I will offer is that if it weren't for a proven successful treatment model for dealing with SEXUAL Offenders outside of prison, society would demand that they be locked up.

In conclusion; If you are a convicted Sexual Offender and you don’t want to submit to polygraph you should contact your Probation/Parole officer immediately and tell them that you have decided to revoke your release contract and return to prison  for the remainder of your sentence. 

SP:

I appreciate the respectful, substantive post, thank-you.  Makes perfect sense.  My one comment, though, is given the nature of the contract between the SO and society, (don't know who to exactly name as the other party of the contract), I would think that the other party, (society), knowing the limitations of the polygraph would understand that a SO would likely attempt to manipulate the results of the polygraph and take this into consideration when entering into said contract.


Afterall, the issue has been on the table for years, if not decades.  The people who have chosen to use a polygraph routine to monitor sex offenders most likely are aware of the limitations of the polygraph, even to the extent that there are people who say the polygraph can be beaten by use of countermeasures.  But, knowing this, still invoke the use.  

I don't think George can be blamed if a sex offender re-offends after society voluntarily let him out of prison based on a contract to receive treatment, including polygraph monitoring, when the polygraph field is well aware of the potential use of countermeasures and the availability of such information on the internet or in book form.  One search on ebay for the word "polygraph" will turn up many books regarding the issue.

It seems to me, that instead of poly examiners spending their time and energy trying to make George feel bad, (or give this site a black eye) they would be better served by attempting to clean up their own act.

If society should expect that an SO will not honor his release contract for any reason, why should he be released at all? 

I wouldn't have a problem with that.  In fact, I would rather release all drug offenders, (except for pushers) and keep all the SO's behind bars.  Get the drug users in to treatment.

Surely you aren't advocating that persons on probation or parole should only adhere to the provisons in their contracts that they like, no matter what they signed.  

No, but also there must be some recognition of the falibility of the polygraph, and the recognition that some will try to beat the polygraph.  But, since counter measures don't work, what harm is done?


Would you also argue that since UA's are not 100% accurate that a convicted felon is justified in using someone else's "Clean" urine in order to manipulate the results of the test and  avoid a false positive?

It is much easier to watch a guy piss into a bottle, than read the mind of someone taking a poly.  Not a very good comparison.  On the other hand, if when one watched a guy piss into a bottle, took that bottle of piss and did a drug screen, which all knew was only 80% accurate, what good would that drug screen be?

As to your second point that I have quoted, Your insinuation that polygraph examiners need to "clean up their own act" is slanderous but I will concede it is probably protected free speech. 

Thank-you for that concession, very generous of you, SP.   




"I have not tried to "make him feel bad" unless"

Unless you have lied about not being an examiner, then my comments obviously do not apply to you, do they?

nopolycop wrote on Dec 11^th, 2007 at 11:35pm:


If you ever PROVE  the fallibility of polygraph to their satisfaction maybe it will be recognized or at least they will stop adding it to the release contracts. Or maybe you could put together a coalition to have polygraphy legislatively removed from the contracts, but the simple fact is that it works. Probation officers and treatment providers praise it. 

Remember the unsupported claims of SOs who claim they told the truth aren't worth much. Any convict knows the first rule is NEVER ADMIT ANYTHING ALWAYS CLAIM YOU WERE FRAMED. The fact that some people will try to beat the polygraph is already recognized that is why it violates the terms of release contracts. I think you may be mistating your point. It seems that you don't want society to recognize that SOs will try to tamper with the test. You seem to want them to EXCUSE that SOs will try to tamper with the results of the test. 

Regarding your comment about watching people urinate into a bottle. Watching someone do that does not guarentee that they have not consumed substances in an attempt to tamper with the results. Supposedly there is a device on the market called the whizzinator that is an anatomically correct urine dispensing device designed to fool "observers" All that being said, Are you even aware that Drug screens do not detect "Drugs" Rather than searching for drugs, urine tests search for drug metabolites – inactive drug by-products that
the body produces as it processes drugs for excretion. Some commonly used tests have a false positive rate of up to 30% for Identifying Marijuana use hmm that would seem to reduce the accuracy rate below 80% without even including false negatives. Society recognizes that parolees will try to tamper with the drug screen results but they refuse to excuse it. Which is why attemting to tamper with those results violates the release contract. 

As to your insinuation that I may have tried to make Mr. Mashke feel bad by lieing about being an examiner, I would ask you to provide some evidence that I have ever stated  to Mr Mashke or anyone else on this forum that I was or was not a polygrapher.

Your insinuation that I have lied or that polygraphers are liars is laughable considering the man you seem to revere co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information. I sense you are trying to bait me into an angry response. 
Never the less I will endeavor to remain civil. Besides I really doubt you could tilt me with a D-7 CAT

Respectfully 
Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 12^th, 2007 at 1:34am:


Hopefully, I have reduced your post to something I can manage.

First, I don't have to prove anything.  The American Polygraph Association recognizes the fallibility of the polygraph, as shown in the below quoted line:

"While the polygraph technique is highly accurate, it is not infallible and errors do occur."

Secondly, I have not insinuated that you have done anything.  You have previously stated you are not a polygraphist, and I said earlier in this thread:

"It seems to me, that instead of poly examiners spending their time and energy trying to make George feel bad, (or give this site a black eye) they would be better served by attempting to clean up their own act. "

I was not including your posts, PS.

Lastly, I have not insinuated you have lied either, nor do I revere George Maschke, although I appreciate his willingness to host this site, and to expose the polygraph industry for what it is.  Afterall, if I asked these same questions over on Polygraphplace, I would have been banned in a heartbeat.  As far as I know, this is the only place I can have discussions about polygraphy with persons who purport to be polygraphists, (although they seem to want to avoid my questions and discussions, I don't know why .

Hello to all.  I think I may have a valid reason for the polygraph which none have discussed that I know of.  As a previous special warfare guy with the Navy, SWCC, I can tell you that Spec War is a good ole boy network.  If they instructors don't like you, you are gone.  I don't care how good you are.  Well, the polygraph is the only step in the process that gives departments the ability to let you go, just because they don't like you.  The way I figure it, if they don't want to work with you, then they fail you.  Sounds simple, but I would not be surprised, and frankly, if that is the case, then I buy off on its use.  I'm not scared of it.  Sorry if I offend anyone, not my intention, but I try to look at both sides of a coin before jumping on a rant.  Sometimes I fail to articulate well on the internet as it is the one place I could care less about articulation.